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

Godot MCP Server Ultimate Edition

by Dex865378
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

update_script

Overwrite the content of an existing script file in a Godot project. Specify project path, script path, and new full content.

Instructions

Update/overwrite the contents of an existing script file

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>",
      "scriptPath": "<scriptPath>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "update_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYes
scriptPathYesScript path relative to project
contentYesNew full content for the script

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only says 'update/overwrite', implying mutation without details on behavior like file existence checks, permissions, or side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence with no wasted words, but it could be structured to include more context without losing conciseness.

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?

Given 3 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief, missing error handling, return values, and prerequisites.

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 coverage is 67% (low-mid) but description adds no parameter meaning beyond schema. ProjectPath lacks description in schema and description does not clarify it.

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 verb (update/overwrite) and resource (contents of an existing script file), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_script and read_script.

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 create_script or delete_file. Lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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