Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wtf-wave

wtf-wave

by xtrollyj00
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

workspace

DestructiveIdempotent

Configure waveform rows, cursors, visible range, decodes, and protocols in a single call, returning the resulting view for VCD, FST, and GHW debug traces.

Instructions

Set up the whole workspace in one call: rows, cursors, range, decodes (help workspace). Answers as view does.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "workspace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYesThe rows, top to bottom: `"name:radix:colour"`, a group or a struct's open levels (`help workspace`).
rangeNoThe visible range, `["60ns", "480ns"]`; default the whole trace.
scopeNoThe scope names resolve under first (`help names`); not given: it stays.
decodeNoDecodes, as `decode` makes them (`help decode`).
cursorsNoCursors by number, `{"1": "80ns", "2": "390ns"}`: 1 the cursor, 2 - 9 marks; a mark may be `{"time": "390ns", "name": "first bad write", "note": "..."}`.
signalsNoComputed signals, `["op = cmd[7:0]"]`.
protocolsNoSampled protocols, as `protocol` makes them (`help decode`).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied. The description contributes the return behavior ('Answers as `view` does') but never states that setting up the workspace replaces existing rows, cursors and decodes, which is the key consequence of a destructive write.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the covered surfaces; no filler. The parenthetical `help workspace` pointer is slightly cryptic but keeps the text compact.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 7-parameter, deeply nested tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format by analogy to `view` and names the main configurable areas. It leaves the destructive replacement semantics and the scope-resolution behavior to the schema, so it is adequate but not complete for a tool with destructiveHint=true.

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% and the nested RowSpec/CursorSpec/DecodeSpec definitions are richly annotated, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only mirrors the property list (rows, cursors, range, decodes) without adding format or interaction detail, which is the correct baseline.

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?

States a concrete verb and scope ('Set up the whole workspace in one call') and enumerates the configuration surfaces it covers: rows, cursors, range, decodes. This is more than a restatement of the name, though it does not clearly separate itself from siblings such as `view` or `present` beyond noting the response matches `view`.

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?

'in one call' hints that this is a batched alternative to configuring pieces individually, but no sibling is named as the alternative and there is no when-to-use or when-not guidance. 'Answers as `view` does' describes the response shape, not the selection condition.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools