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 disclosure burden but reveals almost nothing about behavioral traits. It does not explain the mysterious 'Compatibility tool' designation (read-only? deprecated?), return value structure, or side effects. The presence of connection-related parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) suggests network/IPC behavior that is completely undocumented.

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 extremely brief (two fragments) with no redundant or wasted language. However, given the severe lack of schema documentation and the unclear nature of the parameters, this brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and the presence of non-obvious technical parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), the description is materially incomplete. The 'Compatibility tool' tag raises questions about tool lifecycle and alternatives that remain unanswered.

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%, requiring the description to compensate, yet it mentions neither the 'timeoutMs' nor 'autoConnect' parameters. These parameter names suggest connection/execution management rather than shader domain logic (e.g., material_path, param_names), and their semantics remain entirely opaque without description support.

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 clearly states the core action ('Get shader params') and target resource ('material'), providing a specific verb-resource pairing. However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'read_shader' (which likely retrieves shader code) or 'set_shader_param' (the mutator counterpart), leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves parameter definitions or runtime values.

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 parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' suggests a specific usage context (legacy/deprecated), but provides no actionable guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or what compatibility constraints apply. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided regarding the numerous sibling shader/material tools.

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