Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP

Godot MCP

by KeeVeeG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

setup_collision

Add and configure a collision shape—box, sphere, capsule, etc.—to any node for physics interactions.

Instructions

Add and configure a collision shape on a node

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>",
      "shape_type": "<shape_type>"
    },
    "name": "setup_collision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesNode to add collision to
propertiesNoShape properties (size, radius, height, etc.)
shape_typeYesCollision shape type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavior. It only states 'add and configure' but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing collision shapes, destructive nature, or required node states. Additional 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but sacrifices important context. A longer description covering key usage notes would be more effective.

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 three parameters (including an enum and optional object) and no annotations or output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks details on behavior, edge cases, and return values, making it incomplete for effective tool use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying configuration. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 ('Add and configure') and the resource ('collision shape on a node'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools, as no other tool in the list is dedicated to adding collision shapes.

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, prerequisites (e.g., node type), or when to avoid it. The description lacks context for appropriate usage compared to alternatives.

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