Godot MCP Bridge

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

Without annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden but only provides the '(Compatibility tool)' note. It fails to explain critical behavioral aspects: how the target shader is identified, that parameters are likely passed via additionalProperties (evident in schema), timeout behavior, or side effects.

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 brief at only 5 words. While not verbose, the extreme brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication given the tool's complexity (additionalProperties pattern, 2 undocumented timeout/connection params).

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?

Incomplete for a tool utilizing additionalProperties (suggesting dynamic parameter passing) with no output schema. The description omits how to structure the shader parameter payload, what the timeoutMs controls, and what success/failure behavior to expect.

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 for timeoutMs and autoConnect, and the critical shader/uniform/value parameters apparently passed via additionalProperties (inferred from schema), the description completely fails to explain the parameter contract. No mention of which parameters define the shader target, uniform name, or value to set.

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 (Set) and target resource (shader uniform value), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_shader_params, create_shader, and edit_shader. The '(Compatibility tool)' annotation provides additional categorization context.

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 alternatives like assign_shader_material or edit_shader. The '(Compatibility tool)' hint suggests legacy usage but does not explicitly state when this tool is preferred over newer approaches.

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