Godot MCP Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to explain what the tool returns (element IDs, coordinates, node paths?), the polling behavior implied by 'timeoutMs', or what 'autoConnect' connects to. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at special behavior but 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?

The description is brief (two fragments), but brevity is not virtue here given the complete lack of schema documentation. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag appears to be an implementation detail that doesn't help an agent invoke the tool correctly, wasting precious descriptive space.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain return values, error conditions, and runtime requirements. It provides none of these. An agent cannot determine if this returns a list, a count, or success/failure, nor how it differs from other find operations.

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 compensates by providing zero information about the parameters. It does not explain what connection autoConnect establishes, what timeoutMs waits for, or what units/ranges are expected—critical omissions given the schema silence.

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 action (Find) and target (UI elements in game), distinguishing it from editor-only tools via 'in game'. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is ambiguous—it could imply legacy status, testing purpose, or rendering pipeline context without clarification. It also fails to differentiate from sibling 'find_nodes_by_type' which could locate UI elements.

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 versus alternatives like 'find_nodes_by_type', 'click_button_by_text', or 'get_game_node_properties'. Given the timeoutMs parameter suggests polling/waiting behavior, the description should indicate this is for runtime automation/testing scenarios, but it does not.

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