Skip to main content
Glama
ssql2014
by ssql2014

verilator_simulate

Run RTL simulation for Verilog/SystemVerilog designs with automatic testbench generation, waveform output, and coverage collection.

Instructions

Run RTL simulation with automatic testbench generation if needed

Input Schema

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It hints at automatic testbench generation but doesn't cover critical aspects like execution time, resource requirements, error handling, or output artifacts beyond what's implied. For a complex simulation tool with 18 parameters, this is insufficient.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary action. No wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a complex simulation tool with 18 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what simulation artifacts are produced, or provide sufficient behavioral context. The agent would struggle to understand the full scope and implications of using this tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'automatic testbench generation' which relates to the 'testbench' and 'autoGenerateTestbench' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already explains.

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 action ('Run RTL simulation') and resource ('with automatic testbench generation'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'verilator_compile' or 'verilator_testbenchgenerator', 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'automatic testbench generation if needed', but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or alternatives compared to sibling tools. No context on when to choose this over 'verilator_compile' or 'verilator_testbenchgenerator' is provided.

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