Verilator MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool processes queries but doesn't describe what that entails—e.g., whether it generates code, provides explanations, or performs analysis. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, which are critical for a tool with complex inputs and no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how the tool behaves, what it returns, or how to use the context and history parameters effectively. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low at 33%, with only the 'query' parameter documented. The description mentions 'natural language queries' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but it doesn't explain the purpose of 'context' or 'history' parameters beyond what the schema structure implies. This adds minimal value over the schema, meeting the baseline for partial coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Process natural language queries about RTL simulation, debugging, and analysis.' It specifies the verb ('process') and the resource ('natural language queries'), and the domain scope is well-defined. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like verilator_compile or verilator_simulate, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the domain (RTL simulation, debugging, analysis) but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for querying existing simulations or for general questions, leaving the agent to guess based on the input schema alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.