Godot MCP Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies this as a read operation returning status data, but fails to disclose what format the status takes (boolean, string enum, object) or specific error conditions when disconnected.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Return', immediately communicating the tool's read-only nature. Zero waste.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it could improve by indicating whether the status includes connection state, error messages, or bridge version information.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters. Per guidelines, zero parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed for this status check.

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 uses specific verb 'Return' with clear resource 'current connection status' and scope 'to the Godot bridge'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'godot_connect' and 'godot_disconnect' by clarifying this is a read-only status check rather than a connection management action.

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?

While the name and description imply this checks the bridge health, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this (e.g., 'use before other operations' or 'call when connection errors occur') versus alternatives. Usage is implied but not stated.

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