Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Server Ultimate Edition

Godot MCP Server Ultimate Edition

by Dex865378
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_node_properties

Retrieve all editable properties of a node in a scene as JSON. Specify project, scene, and node path to examine node attributes.

Instructions

Get all editable properties of a specific node in a scene (returns JSON)

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": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>",
      "scenePath": "<scenePath>",
      "nodePath": "<nodePath>"
    },
    "name": "get_node_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYes
scenePathYes
nodePathYesPath to the node

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get', but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, permission requirements, or error handling for missing nodes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates purpose and output.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description omits details like JSON structure, error conditions, and interaction with sibling tools. For a simple getter, it is borderline adequate but leaves gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only nodePath has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving projectPath and scenePath self-explanatory but lacking validation hints or context.

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 clearly states the action (Get), resource (editable properties of a node), scope (in a scene), and output format (JSON). It distinguishes from siblings like set_node_properties by implying a read operation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_node_properties or other node inspection tools. No context about prerequisites or limitations.

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