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

Godot MCP Server Ultimate Edition

by Dex865378
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

set_collision_layer_mask

Sets collision layer and mask on physics bodies or areas to define which physics layers interact. Useful for fine-tuning collision detection in Godot scenes.

Instructions

Set collision layer and mask on a physics body or area. Controls which physics layers interact.

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": "set_collision_layer_mask"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesPath to the Godot project directory
scenePathYesScene file path
nodePathYesPath to the physics body/area node
layerNoCollision layer bitmask value
maskNoCollision mask bitmask value

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and description does not disclose behavioral details such as overwrite behavior, error handling, or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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 that effectively communicate the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the 5 parameters and lack of annotations, the description provides just enough to understand the tool but misses context on when it's appropriate and what results to expect.

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 covers all parameters, and description reiterates 'collision layer and mask' without additional semantic depth. Baseline score due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool's action (Set) and resource (collision layer and mask on a physics body/area). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_collision_shape and set_node_properties.

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?

Description implies usage context by stating it 'sets collision layer and mask', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives 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