Godot MCP Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden of behavioral disclosure on the description. The description completely omits critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what specific animation details are returned, why timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters exist (suggesting network/connection behavior), and whether this queries the editor or runtime animation system.

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 at only 4 words plus a parenthetical, this represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. For a tool with undocumented parameters and no annotations, the extreme brevity indicates missing essential information rather than well-edited conciseness. Every sentence fails to earn its place due to lack of actionable content.

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 the presence of 2 undocumented parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain: (1) how to specify which animation to query, (2) what data structure is returned, (3) the connection-oriented nature implied by the parameters, or (4) the compatibility context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the two parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect). It fails entirely to mention either parameter, leaving their purpose (apparently related to connection management) completely undocumented. The agent has no guidance on what the timeout applies to or what auto-connect enables.

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 'Get animation details' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'get_animation_info' with a synonym. While it identifies the resource (animation) and action (get), it fails to specify what distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_animations or get_animation_tree_structure. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds minimal context without clarifying scope or purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_animations for enumeration vs. this for details). The '(Compatibility tool)' label implies a specific use case but fails to explain what 'compatibility' means or when this should be preferred over newer alternatives, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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