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 mentions 'intelligent testbenches' and 'automatic stimulus generation,' which hints at generative behavior, but lacks critical details: whether this tool creates files (implied but not stated), what permissions or prerequisites are needed, if it modifies existing files, error handling, or output format. For a tool with 13 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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: 'Generate intelligent testbenches for Verilog/SystemVerilog modules with automatic stimulus generation.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a tool with a clear function. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like file creation, error handling, or dependencies. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, especially for a tool that likely generates files and interacts with a verification environment.

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?

The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'template' with enum values, 'stimulusType' options). The description's mention of 'automatic stimulus generation' loosely relates to parameters like stimulusType but doesn't enhance understanding of individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Generate intelligent testbenches for Verilog/SystemVerilog modules with automatic stimulus generation.' It specifies the action (generate), resource (testbenches), and domain (Verilog/SystemVerilog modules). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like verilator_simulate or verilator_compile, which could have overlapping functionality in a verification workflow.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools (verilator_compile, verilator_naturallanguage, verilator_simulate) or other contexts where this tool might be preferred or avoided. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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