Spawns many entities in a Godot scene and monitors performance to assess game stability under load.
Run a stress test on the game (spawn entities, measure performance)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Node type to spawn (default: Node2D) | Node2D |
| count | No | Number of entities to spawn (default: 100) | |
| properties | No | Properties to set on each spawned entity | |
| parent_path | No | Parent node path for spawned entities |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions spawning entities and measuring performance but does not disclose side effects (e.g., game state changes, resource usage, or whether it is destructive). Key behavioral details are missing.
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 concise (one sentence) but omits important details like output or side effects. It is front-loaded with purpose but sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected results or behavior. It fails to explain what 'measure performance' means or how the output looks, leaving the agent underinformed.
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?
The description does not elaborate on parameters; all coverage comes from the input schema (100%). Thus, it adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 tool's purpose: running a stress test, spawning entities, and measuring performance. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_test_scenario' or 'simulate_gameplay_scenario' by explicitly focusing on stress testing.
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a running game) or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other test tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KeeVeeG/godot-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server