Skip to main content
Glama
ssql2014
by ssql2014

verilator_simulate

Run RTL simulations with automatic testbench generation when needed, enabling hardware verification of Verilog/SystemVerilog designs through configurable coverage, waveforms, and assertions.

Instructions

Run RTL simulation with automatic testbench generation if needed

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
designYesDesign file or compiled directory
definesNoMacro definitions
timeoutNoSimulation timeout in milliseconds
verboseNoVerbose output
plusargsNoPlusargs to pass to simulation
outputDirNoOutput directory for simulation artifactssim_output
testbenchNoTestbench file (will auto-generate if missing)
topModuleNoTop module name
waveformFileNoWaveform output file
coverageTypesNoCoverage types to collect
enableCoverageNoEnable coverage collection
enableWaveformNoGenerate waveform dump
simulationTimeNoOverride simulation time
waveformFormatNoWaveform formatvcd
enableAssertionsNoEnable assertion checking
useExistingBuildNoUse existing compiled output
optimizationLevelNoOptimization level
autoGenerateTestbenchNoAuto-generate testbench if missing
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like file creation, side effects, error handling, and performance impacts. It only hints at conditional testbench generation but fails to explain the simulation process, resource usage, or that it modifies output directories. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's full behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, capturing the core action. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (18 parameters), the description may be too brief to be fully informative; a slightly longer description could add useful context without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description lacks information about return values (no output schema), simulation results, error handling, and the overall workflow. For a complex tool with many parameters, the description is not sufficiently complete to guide an agent on expected outcomes or process steps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Thus it meets the baseline expectation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the primary action (run RTL simulation) and highlights a key feature (automatic testbench generation). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like verilator_testbenchgenerator, which also generates testbenches. The purpose is largely clear but lacks distinct context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over verilator_compile, verilator_testbenchgenerator, or other alternatives. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on appropriate deployment.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ssql2014/verilator-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server