Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-rtl-review

mcp-rtl-review

by zesun33
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

rtl_toolchain_info

Identify active Verilator runtime and parser versions plus supported rules to validate toolchain compatibility for RTL analyses.

Instructions

Returns active container/host runtime and version information for the Verilator AST parser and supported rule list.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "rtl_toolchain_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoOptional workspace directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey the behavioral profile. 'Returns... information' strongly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose side effects, return format, or how the optional cwd affects the result.

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 a single sentence with the key verb front-loaded and no filler. It loses a point because it densely bundles multiple concepts—container/host runtime, version info, parser, and rule list—into one clause, reducing immediate readability.

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 simple read-only info tool with full schema coverage on its one optional parameter, the description gives the basic scope. However, the absence of an output schema and any detail about return shape or cwd behavior leaves moderate gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 documents the single optional cwd parameter with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds no additional semantics about how cwd influences the toolchain info, keeping this at the 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?

The description identifies a clear verb and resource: it returns container/host runtime, version information, and the supported rule list. It is also distinguishable from the review/check siblings by its informational nature, though the phrase 'active container/host runtime' is somewhat ambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The tool's purpose implies it should be used when an agent needs toolchain/version/rule-list information rather than performing an RTL review or check. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. siblings or when not to use it.

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