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 reveals nothing about the return format, what 'input actions' contain, side effects of autoConnect, or blocking behavior implied by timeoutMs. The 'compatibility' label is 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?

Extremely brief (two fragments), but the second fragment '(Compatibility tool)' wastes space without explanation. Front-loading is adequate, though the cryptic parenthetical detracts from the actual payload.

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?

Despite having only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the Godot-specific domain (input action maps), the connection mechanism (autoConnect), or why this is labeled a compatibility tool.

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 has 0% description coverage for timeoutMs and autoConnect. The description adds no semantic meaning for these parameters, leaving the agent to guess that timeoutMs controls operation duration and autoConnect handles connection establishment.

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 core action ('List') and resource ('input actions'), but '(Compatibility tool)' is vague and undefined. Fails to distinguish from siblings like set_input_action or simulate_action regarding when listing is preferred over other operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at deprecation or legacy status but fails to specify what the preferred alternative is, leaving the agent without actionable selection criteria.

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