Godot MCP Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but provides minimal behavioral context. The '(Compatibility tool)' note hints at legacy/deprecation status but is too vague to be useful. No mention of side effects, atomicity, or what happens to existing connections.

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

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

The description is extremely brief (4 words plus parenthetical). While not verbose, the '(Compatibility tool)' phrase is insufficiently informative to justify its inclusion. Structure is front-loaded but sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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

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

Given zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide comprehensive context. Instead, it offers only the minimal operation label. For a mutation tool affecting signal connections, this is inadequate.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% for both parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), yet the description compensates with zero explanation. The parameters' purposes are mysterious given the tool name—particularly 'autoConnect' defaulting to true for a disconnect operation—which demands explicit clarification.

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

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

The description states the basic operation ('Disconnect node signal') and identifies the domain (node-based signals, likely Godot engine). However, it fails to specify scope (disconnect all connections or specific ones?) and does not differentiate from sibling tool 'connect_signal' beyond the verb.

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

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

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for disconnection, or relationship to the 'connect_signal' sibling. The cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical offers no actionable guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.