Godot MCP Runtime

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

stop_project

Destructive

Stop the running Godot project and free the process slot so scene-editing tools unlock. Call it after runtime testing, even after a crash or if you closed the window yourself.

Instructions

Stop the spawned Godot project and clean up bridge state. Call when done with runtime testing, even after a crash, and even if you closed the Godot window yourself: it frees the process slot and clears the flag blocking scene-editing tools. A process that exited on its own already removed the bridge autoload at that moment, and this still succeeds - it reports alreadyExited:true with the exit code and the logs captured before the exit, and leaves a finished profiler capture readable. Attached sessions detach without killing the external process. Returns: message, mode, externalProcessPreserved, alreadyExited, exitCode (already-exited case), and condensed finalOutput/finalErrors (capped at 200); get_debug_output has the full log. Errors only when there is no session and no exited process to report.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No
`message`	No
`exitCode`	No
`finalErrors`	No
`finalOutput`	No
`alreadyExited`	No
`externalProcessPreserved`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.6.0Sep 12, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / alreadyExited
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / exitCode
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "number",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
Addedv3.1.1May 17, 2026
Removedv3.0.0May 9, 2026
Addedv1.0.0Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: it clears a flag blocking scene-editing tools, frees a process slot, reports alreadyExited:true with exit code and logs when the process self-exited, detaches attached sessions without killing the external process, and errors only when there is nothing to report. This is rich behavioral disclosure that goes well beyond the single annotation.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then follows with usage conditions and return details. The sentence about already-exited behavior is long but dense with relevant information. The return-value enumeration ('message, mode, ...') is somewhat list-like but earns its place given the output schema exists and the description summarizes key fields.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the description helpfully summarizes the key return fields (especially alreadyExited, exitCode, finalOutput) and explains the error condition. It covers lifecycle, cleanup side effects, and interaction with other tools. Complete for a zero-parameter lifecycle tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameters, and correctly focuses on behavior instead. No param meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Stop the spawned Godot project') and adds scope ('clean up bridge state'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like detach_project (which detaches without killing) and stop_profiler. An agent can pick this over its neighbors without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Call when done with runtime testing, even after a crash, and even if you closed the Godot window yourself') and specifies the consequences of not calling. It also implicitly distinguishes from detach_project by noting attached sessions preserve the external process. 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.