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. It mentions 'Compatibility tool' suggesting legacy or special-mode behavior, but fails to explain the destructive/side-effect profile, what 'compatibility' specifically means, or why the parameters suggest connection-timeout behavior rather than physics configuration.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the primary action, but it is underspecified rather than elegantly concise. The '(Compatibility tool)' fragment adds some value but is too vague to fully earn its place without elaboration.

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 the complex parameter schema (connection-like params with additionalProperties for actual values), lack of annotations, and ambiguous 'compatibility' context, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the additionalProperties pattern, the relationship to get_physics_layers, or the prerequisites for use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and includes parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) that appear unrelated to the described physics layer functionality. The description completely omits explanation of these parameters or the critical fact that additionalProperties: true allows passing the actual layer/mask values not defined in the schema properties.

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 the core action (Set) and resource (collision layer and mask), but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is vague and unexplained. It fails to clarify how this differs from sibling tools like setup_physics_body or set_navigation_layers, and the stated purpose conflicts confusingly with the timeoutMs/autoConnect parameters in the schema.

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?

Only the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' hint suggests special usage context, but it doesn't explain when to prefer this over alternatives like setup_physics_body, nor does it clarify that actual layer/mask values must be passed via additionalProperties since they aren't defined in the input schema.

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