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 behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It does not explain what 'compatibility tool' implies (limitations? deprecation?), what the return format is, or that this likely queries a running game instance (implied by autoConnect parameter). No contradictions with annotations.

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 (4 words plus parenthetical), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence earns its place, but the description lacks necessary information density for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what node groups are (Godot-specific concept), what the tool returns, or why 'compatibility' is relevant. The agent cannot determine if this retrieves groups for a specific node (no node identifier in schema) or global group definitions.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for both 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining these parameters, their relationship to the tool's function (likely connecting to a game instance), or their default behaviors. Critical gap given the schema deficiency.

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 node groups' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name. While it identifies the resource type (node groups), it fails to specify scope (which node? all groups in project?) or distinguish from sibling 'set_node_groups'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds minimal context without explaining what compatibility refers to.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_nodes_in_group' or 'set_node_groups'. The '(Compatibility tool)' label hints at potential deprecation or legacy use but does not clearly state when to prefer this over newer alternatives or what prerequisites (e.g., running game instance) are required.

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