Godot MCP Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. While 'runtime nodes' indicates this operates on the live game instance rather than the editor, the description fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the meaning of 'Compatibility tool.' No side effects or performance characteristics are documented.

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 (nine words), but the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without adding actionable information. The core purpose is front-loaded, though the unexplained tag creates ambiguity without expanding understanding.

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 parameter descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex Godot automation context, the description is inadequate. It omits expected return structure, does not clarify what constitutes a 'runtime' context versus editor context, and leaves the 'Compatibility' warning unexplained.

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% for the two defined parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), and the description adds no details about them. However, the phrase 'by script' provides semantic context for the additionalProperties: true field, implying the tool expects script identifiers as input, though this remains implicit.

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 clearly states the tool finds 'runtime nodes by script,' specifying the action (Find), resource (runtime nodes), and filter criteria (by script). It distinguishes from siblings like find_nodes_by_type or find_nodes_in_group. However, the cryptic parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained, slightly diminishing clarity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_script_references or find_nodes_by_type. It does not explain what 'Compatibility tool' implies (e.g., deprecation, legacy support) or prerequisites for use.

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