# Benchmarking AI Agents for Hardware Design Automation via MCP Tool Calling

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26199 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.26199/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 12 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18901/) (2024)
- [Plan-and-Act: Improving Planning of Agents for Long-Horizon Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09572/) (2025)
- [Does Prompt Formatting Have Any Impact on LLM Performance?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.10541/) (2024)
- [MCP-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Using LLM Agents with Complex Real-World Tasks via MCP Servers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.20453/) (2025)
- [ChipGPT: How far are we from natural language hardware design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14019/) (2023)
- [CRMArena: Understanding the Capacity of LLM Agents to Perform Professional CRM Tasks in Realistic Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.02305/) (2024)
- [MCP-RADAR: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating Tool Use Capabilities in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16700/) (2025)
- [SPRIG: Improving Large Language Model Performance by System Prompt Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14826/) (2024)
- [AgentArch: A Comprehensive Benchmark to Evaluate Agent Architectures in Enterprise](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.10769/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We ask whether AI agents powered by locally deployed large language models can reliably automate expert-defined hardware design workflows in an industry-realistic tool-calling setting. In these environments, engineers issue repetitive, dependency-ordered operations---such as creating components, adding ports, and wiring connections---through specialised tools. Confidentiality constraints on component specifications and naming conventions often preclude hosted proprietary APIs, motivating the use of locally deployed models. To study this setting, we build a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that reproduces the state and dependency logic of a proprietary hardware design tool used in embedded system development and construct a benchmark covering single-operation edits, multi-step dependency chains, invalid requests, misspelled prompts, and multi-server tool contexts. We evaluate seven open-source models comparing pipeline choices including system prompts, tool-description detail, context scope, and single-agent versus multi-agent architectures. Results show that strong models can achieve near-complete expected-call coverage on the benchmarked workflows, but reliability depends strongly on both task structure and agent configuration. Comprehensive tool descriptions consistently reduce failures, few-shot prompting can cause severe inaction for some models, cumulative context harms constrained models, and multi-agent decomposition helps weak workers or long sessions at the cost of additional calls. These findings provide practical guidance for deploying local LLM agents in stateful hardware design environments.