Suppose you ask an assistant why a small training block has negative setup slack. It writes a plausible explanation about a deep combinational path, but it has never seen the timing report. A useful next step is to obtain the relevant evidence. Copying an approved excerpt into the conversation can work. When a team repeatedly needs selected report data, a controlled connection can make that evidence easier to retrieve with its origin attached.
Model Context Protocol, or MCP, standardizes exchanges between a client and a server that offers context or actions. It does not itself decide which timing corner matters or whether the explanation is correct. The official architecture overview for the 2025-11-25 documentation describes the host, client, and server roles. The host is the surrounding assistant application; its client communicates with a particular server.
WNS means worst negative slack: the most negative reported timing margin in the summary. Here, -0.08 ns indicates a setup requirement was missed by 0.08 ns on the worst reported path. Keep the report's conditions attached to that number; it does not describe every clock or corner.
SYNTHETIC report fixture, snapshot training-r1
report_id: sta-01
kind: STA setup summary
corner: slow-demo
clock: core_clk
line 12: WNS = -0.08 ns
line 13: violating endpoints = 3
line 14: detailed paths not includedImagine a report-search tool returning lines 12-14. A careful worked answer is: 'The supplied setup summary reports WNS of -0.08 ns and three violating endpoints at slow-demo for core_clk. The excerpt has no path detail, so it does not establish the cause.' The first sentence cites observations; the second identifies the missing evidence. A request for detailed paths is a proposed next step, subject to access and scope. No actual model produced this worked answer.
Term | Role in this example |
|---|---|
MCP | Carries a report-search request and its result in an agreed format. |
Agent | A surrounding loop that might choose a follow-up action after reading the result. |
RAG | A retrieval-augmented generation approach; a report server could support retrieval, but MCP does not require RAG, embeddings, or a vector store. |
Sandbox | A separately enforced execution boundary. Connecting a local server does not create one. |
Authorization grant | Permission for particular access. Discovering a tool does not grant permission to use all data behind it. |
Skill | A reusable procedure, such as how to compare report conditions before interpreting slack. |
For an RTL task the evidence could be a lint warning with a rule identifier. For DV it could be a seed and failure signature. For PD it could be a congestion summary tied to a placement snapshot. In each case, a reliable answer preserves the report's identity and conditions. A convenient connection does not make two reports comparable when they came from different revisions, modes, or stages.
A colleague reads the fixture and writes: 'MCP proved that pipelining the datapath will fix timing at every corner.' Rewrite the conclusion using only the supplied evidence. Then name one item needed before suggesting a specific RTL change. Also decide whether a single manual report upload would be reasonable for a one-off training question.
State the reported WNS, endpoint count, corner, clock, and synthetic snapshot. Do not infer a root cause or all-corner closure. Ask for a detailed violating path with its constraints and source revision before proposing a change. A manual approved excerpt is reasonable for one question; MCP is useful when a maintained connection serves repeated work.
This example teaches evidence flow, not STA methodology or signoff. A successful request can still return stale, incomplete, or misleading data. The MCP specification, revision 2025-11-25 defines the protocol; report freshness and engineering acceptance remain application and team responsibilities.