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 fails to mention return format (file list? paths?), whether the search is recursive, case sensitivity, or performance characteristics. 'Compatibility tool' suggests deprecated behavior but doesn't explain what that entails.

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 terse with zero redundancy. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and presence of additionalProperties, the description is arguably too concise—omitting critical parameter details that would fit in a slightly longer description.

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?

Inadequate for the tool's complexity. With no output schema, 0% input schema coverage, and additionalProperties enabled, the description should specify expected return values and the structure of pattern/glob arguments. The two-sentence format cannot cover necessary implementation details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters but mentions neither. It vaguely hints at 'pattern or glob' inputs (relevant given additionalProperties: true), but doesn't specify parameter names, syntax, or formats required for the actual search functionality.

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 basic action (search files) and method (pattern/glob), but fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'search_in_files' which likely performs content search. The '(Compatibility tool)' label adds some context but doesn't clarify functional differences.

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 '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at legacy usage but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'search_in_files' or other file-related tools. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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