Godot MCP Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose what 'nearby' means (units, measurement method), what the return value contains, or how to interpret the results. The existence of 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters suggests network or async behavior that the description completely ignores.

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 brief (one sentence + fragment), but the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment wastes space without adding actionable information. Given the lack of schema documentation, the description is too terse rather than appropriately concise.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and only 2 optional parameters, the tool requires more descriptive context. The description fails to explain the spatial query mechanism, the purpose of the timeout, or what 'autoConnect' connects to, leaving significant operational gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It mentions 'by position' implying coordinates are required, but these are not defined in the schema properties (only additionalProperties: true). It fails to explain 'timeoutMs' or 'autoConnect', leaving critical behavioral parameters undocumented.

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?

States the basic action (find nodes) and criterion (by position), but 'nearby' is undefined (distance? radius? viewport?) and '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic without explanation. It minimally distinguishes from sibling 'find_nodes_by_type' via the spatial aspect, but lacks specificity.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' suggests a specific use case but fails to explain what compatibility it provides or when to prefer this over other find_* siblings.

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