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 fails to specify whether this operation is destructive to existing shapes, what the 'timeoutMs' parameter governs (operation timeout? connection timeout?), or what side effects occur. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at legacy 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, but the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without adding actionable information. It achieves brevity at the cost of necessary specificity regarding the parameter schema.

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 tool accepts arbitrary additional properties (additionalProperties: true) and lacks an output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to structure the collision shape data passed via additional properties, nor does it describe the return value or failure modes (e.g., timeout behavior).

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the two defined parameters ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect') or the critical 'additionalProperties: true' pattern, which implies arbitrary collision shape data must be passed via undeclared properties. The agent has no guidance on required inputs beyond the connection parameters.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('collision shapes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_collision_info' or 'setup_physics_body'. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is ambiguous and doesn't clarify what compatibility concerns exist or how this differs from standard collision setup tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'setup_physics_body' or 'add_node'. It does not mention prerequisites, nor does it explain the 'compatibility' context that might indicate when this specific tool is preferred over newer methods.

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