Skip to main content
Glama

game_canvas_draw

game_canvas_draw

Draw 2D shapes and text on a Godot canvas: lines, rectangles, circles, polygons, and text. Clear the canvas with the clear action.

Instructions

2D drawing: line/rect/circle/polygon/text/clear

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd point {x,y}
fromNoStart point {x,y}
rectNoRectangle {x,y,w,h}
textNoText to draw
colorNoDraw color {r,g,b,a}
widthNoLine width. Default: 2
actionYesAction: line, rect, circle, polygon, text, clear
centerNoCenter point {x,y}
filledNoFill shape. Default: true
pointsNoPolygon points [{x,y},...]
radiusNoCircle radius
parentPathNoParent node path for draw node
Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic drawing capability. It fails to mention whether drawing is persistent, if it requires a canvas context, or any side effects. Annotations are minimal, so the description carries the full burden but offers little.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—a single line. While it lists the key actions efficiently, it might be too terse for an agent to fully understand the tool's capability without referring to the schema. More structure would improve usability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's return value or the effect on the game state, leaving the agent without crucial context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond listing the actions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it's for 2D drawing and lists the supported shapes (line, rect, circle, polygon, text, clear), which defines the tool's purpose distinctly. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like game_canvas or game_debug_draw.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 tool versus alternatives, such as when to use game_canvas for canvas management or game_debug_draw for debugging. There are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Fulviuus/godot-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server