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

Godot MCP Server Ultimate Edition

by Dex865378
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

inspect_model_bounds

Inspect a 3D model to retrieve its bounding box dimensions—min, max, center, and size vectors—enabling accurate positioning in the scene.

Instructions

Inspect a 3D model (.glb/.gltf/.tscn) to get its bounding box dimensions. Returns min, max, center, and size vectors. Essential for positioning models correctly.

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>",
      "modelPath": "<modelPath>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_model_bounds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesPath to the Godot project directory
modelPathYesPath to the model file (relative to project, e.g. models/train.glb)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns min, max, center, and size vectors, implying a read-only inspection. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or describe potential failure modes.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first explains what the tool does, the second details its output and a usage hint. No filler or redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output. It could be improved by noting that the model files must exist and be accessible.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (projectPath and modelPath). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool inspects 3D model files (.glb/.gltf/.tscn) to return bounding box dimensions. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with other aspects of model management.

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 description mentions 'Essential for positioning models correctly,' which implies usage context but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., model must exist), or when not to use.

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