Godot MCP Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden but offers only the vague '(Compatibility tool)' hint without explaining what compatibility mode entails, return format, pagination, or side effects. The timeoutMs parameter suggests potential blocking behavior that should have been disclosed.

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 appropriately brief at two short phrases, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Given zero schema coverage and no output schema, additional length was needed to document parameters and return behavior.

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?

Severely incomplete for a listing tool with no output schema. Fails to describe return structure (array of file paths? script objects?), filtering capabilities, or how it handles large projects. The undocumented parameters suggest connection management that remains unexplained.

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% for both parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect). The description completely fails to compensate by explaining these technical parameters—particularly what the timeout applies to or what auto-connecting means in this context.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('scripts in project'), but fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'get_open_scripts' (which likely returns only currently open scripts). The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and doesn't clarify 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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'get_open_scripts' or 'read_script'. No mention of prerequisites, project connection requirements, or performance considerations despite the timeoutMs parameter implying potential hanging behavior.

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