List safe MCP tools and authenticated editor capabilities for controlling a Godot editor adapter via WebSocket.
List the safe WorldKit MCP tools and authenticated editor capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond stating it lists safe tools; it does not mention any authentication details or output specifics, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.
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 that immediately states the action and resource. No fluff, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and every word contributes to the meaning.
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?
For a simple list operation with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It doesn't explain the distinction between 'safe WorldKit MCP tools' and 'authenticated editor capabilities', but that is minor given the tool's simplicity and the existing structured metadata.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema correctly has no properties. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately adds no parameter-related text.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('safe WorldKit MCP tools and authenticated editor capabilities'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that report status, scene summary, selected nodes, or select a node. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but there is no mention of when to call this capability-listing tool instead of status or selection tools, nor any exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.