Skip to main content
Glama
Erodenn

Godot MCP Runtime

by Erodenn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

attach_project

Destructive

Inject the MCP bridge into a Godot process you launch yourself, then wait up to 15s for a response. Call before Godot starts to avoid bridge timeout errors.

Instructions

Inject the MCP bridge into a Godot process you launch yourself, then wait up to 15s for the bridge to respond. Call BEFORE Godot launches - Godot reads autoloads only at process start, so a late call returns "bridge did not respond." Recommended pattern: kick off the Godot launch in parallel with this call so the wait absorbs startup. Prefer run_project unless MCP must not spawn Godot. Returns plain-text status with the resolved bridge port. Call detach_project or stop_project when done.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bridgePortNoTCP port for the MCP bridge. Omit to auto-select a free port (recommended). The chosen port is baked into the project's `mcp_bridge.gd` at inject time, so the running Godot listens on exactly this port.
projectPathYesPath to the Godot project directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.1.1
  2. Removedv3.0.0
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / waitForBridge
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true, poll the bridge until it responds (up to 15 seconds). Use this after Godot is already running to confirm runtime tools are ready. Defaults to false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With only destructiveHint=true in annotations, the description adds substantial context: a 15s wait budget, the exact failure mode ('bridge did not respond'), the ordering constraint tied to autoload reading at process start, and the plain-text return with resolved port. It does not explicitly disclose that injection modifies the project's mcp_bridge.gd file (which is what justifies destructiveHint), leaving that to the schema's bridgePort note.

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?

The critical ordering constraint and parallel-launch guidance are front-loaded, and every sentence carries actionable content. It is dense and appropriately sized for a tool with a non-obvious timing contract, though slightly long.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers return format (plain-text status with resolved bridge port), timing, failure behavior, and cleanup. The main residual gap is explaining why it is destructive (project file modification), but otherwise it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the auto-select behavior and port-baking detail. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Inject the MCP bridge into a Godot process you launch yourself.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings run_project and launch_editor, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('Call BEFORE Godot launches'), when-not/alternative ('Prefer run_project unless MCP must not spawn Godot'), a recommended calling pattern (launch in parallel with this call), and follow-up cleanup tools (detach_project or stop_project). Nothing is left to inference.

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