Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP

Godot MCP

by KeeVeeG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

edit_shader

Find and replace text in shader files to modify shader behavior.

Instructions

Edit a shader file by replacing old_text with new_text

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "old_text": "<old_text>",
      "new_text": "<new_text>"
    },
    "name": "edit_shader"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesShader file path
new_textYesReplacement text
old_textYesText to find and replace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the replacement operation but does not mention side effects, validation, saving, or whether the shader must be loaded. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the key action.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple with 3 required parameters and no output schema. While the description covers the basic operation, it lacks information on return values, error handling, or edge cases. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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%, with each parameter having a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('edit'), the resource ('shader file'), and the method ('replacing old_text with new_text'). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_shader, delete_shader, and validate_shader.

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 edit_resource or edit_script. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools