Godot MCP Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only adds the '(Compatibility tool)' context without explaining return format, coordinate system, performance characteristics, or what 'used' means (non-empty tiles? specific layers?).

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 concise at only four words plus a parenthetical. No filler or redundant text—every word earns its place. However, the brevity crosses into underspecification rather than optimal efficiency.

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?

For a data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description omits critical context such as return data structure, coordinate format, or array dimensions. The two parameters remain unexplained, leaving significant gaps in the contract.

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'), yet the description fails to explain what these parameters control or their relationship to the tilemap operation. No compensation for the undocumented schema.

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 basic action ('List used tile cells') but remains vague about what constitutes a 'used' cell. It fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'tilemap_get_cell' (which presumably retrieves a single cell) and only adds the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical beyond restating the function name.

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 is provided on when to use this versus alternatives like 'tilemap_get_cell' or 'tilemap_get_info'. The '(Compatibility tool)' hint suggests legacy usage but does not specify when to prefer this over newer alternatives.

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