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 burden of disclosure yet reveals nothing about side effects, return values, performance characteristics, or what 'compatibility' mode entails. The existence of timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters implies network or process behavior that remains unexplained.

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?

While brief (four words plus a parenthetical), this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing actionable information beyond the tool name itself.

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 descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and ambiguous purpose, the description is inadequate. A tool searching for script references in a game engine context requires clarification on scope (project-wide? scene-specific? external?) and return format.

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%, and the description fails to compensate by explaining either parameter. timeoutMs and autoConnect have defaults (5000ms/true) but no semantic explanation of what connection is being auto-established or what timeout behavior occurs.

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 'Find script references' largely restates the tool name (find_script_references) without clarifying what constitutes a 'reference' or how this differs from siblings like find_nodes_by_script or find_node_references. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' adds minimal context but remains ambiguous regarding compatibility with what.

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 such as find_nodes_by_script or search_in_files. The 'Compatibility tool' label suggests a specific use case but lacks explanation of when compatibility mode is necessary or preferred.

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