Enables AI assistants to launch the Godot editor, run projects in debug mode, capture console output, control project execution, manage scenes and nodes, load sprites and textures, export 3D scenes as MeshLibrary resources, and manage UID references in Godot projects.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Godot MCP connect to the remote debugger and show me the latest error messages"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A MCP server for AI assistants (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex etc) to control and access Godot Engine: capturing errors in editor, managing scenes, and remote connections allowing real-time build and debug - synchronized with your Godot editor.
git clone https://github.com/LeeSinLiang/godot-mcp.git ~/tools/godot-mcp
cd ~/tools/godot-mcp
npm install
npm run build
npm linkcd ~/my-games/your-godot-project
godot-mcp-initThe tool will:
Ask for your Godot executable path
Select which clients to configure (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor)
Create configuration files automatically
That's it! Start using AI assistance in Cursor or Claude Code.
Related MCP server: godot-mcp
Project Management: Launch editor, run/stop projects, list/inspect Godot projects
Scene Editing: Create scenes, add/configure nodes, load sprites, export mesh libraries
Remote Debugging (Recommended): Connect to Godot editor's remote debugger, capture real-time output while running in editor
Debug Output: Get print statements, errors, and warnings from running projects
Cross-Platform: Windows, macOS, Linux support
Work seamlessly with the Godot editor while AI assists you:
connect_remote_debugger - Connect to Godot editor's remote debugger (default ports 6006/6007)
Press F5 in Godot editor to run your project
get_remote_debug_output - Get real-time print statements, errors, and warnings
Make changes with AI assistance and test immediately in the editor
This workflow allows you to:
Write code in Godot editor with syntax highlighting and autocomplete
Run and debug with F5 while AI monitors output and suggests fixes
No blind coding - see exactly what's happening in real-time
Debug & Remote: connect_remote_debugger, get_remote_debug_output, disconnect_remote_debugger, get_debug_output, capture_screenshot
Project Management: launch_editor, run_project, stop_project, list_projects, get_project_info, get_godot_version
Scene Editing: create_scene, add_node, load_sprite, save_scene, export_mesh_library
UID Management (Godot 4.4+): get_uid, update_project_uids
Windows: C:\Program Files\Godot\Godot.exe or C:\Downloads\Godot_v4.5.1-stable_win64.exe\Godot_v4.5.1-stable_win64.exe
macOS: /Applications/Godot.app/Contents/MacOS/Godot
Linux: /usr/bin/godot or /usr/local/bin/godot
Most common cause: Wrong Godot executable path in configuration.
Solution:
Verify your Godot path by running: "<your-godot-path>" --version
Update the path in your config file:
Claude Code: Edit .mcp.json in your project directory
Cursor: Edit .cursor/mcp.json in your project directory
Claude Desktop: Check config in %APPDATA%\Claude\ (Windows) or ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/ (macOS)
Restart your IDE/application after updating the config
Check logs:
Cursor: Output panel → "MCP Logs" (Ctrl+Shift+U)
Claude Code: Terminal output or MCP logs
If you prefer manual setup, create config files:
Claude Code - .mcp.json in project directory:
{
"mcpServers": {
"godot": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/godot-mcp/build/index.js"],
"env": { "GODOT_PATH": "/path/to/godot/executable" }
}
}
}Cursor - .cursor/mcp.json in project directory (same format as above)
Claude Desktop - %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json (Windows) or ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS):
{
"mcpServers": {
"godot": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/godot-mcp/build/index.js"],
"env": { "GODOT_PATH": "/path/to/godot/executable" }
}
}
}npm run build # Build the project
npm run watch # Watch mode for development
npm run inspector # Test with MCP inspectorAdd a node to an existing scene
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory | |
| scenePath | Yes | Path to the scene file (relative to project) | |
| parentNodePath | No | Path to the parent node (e.g., "root" or "root/Player") | root |
| nodeType | Yes | Type of node to add (e.g., Sprite2D, CollisionShape2D) | |
| nodeName | Yes | Name for the new node | |
| properties | No | Optional properties to set on the node |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a node' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are saved automatically, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. It lacks crucial context for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place efficiently.
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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after node addition, whether the scene needs saving separately, what errors might occur, or how this integrates with the Godot workflow. The description should provide more context given the complexity and lack of structured metadata.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 action ('Add a node') and the target resource ('to an existing scene'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'create_scene' or explain how it differs from other node-related operations that might exist in the Godot ecosystem.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing scene), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'create_scene' or 'save_scene'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Capture a screenshot of the running game viewport via remote debugger and return it as base64-encoded image. Requires an active remote debugger connection (use connect_remote_debugger first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Image format (png or jpg, default: png) | png |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing the prerequisite (active remote debugger connection) and output behavior (returns base64-encoded image). It doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or what happens if the game isn't running, but covers the essential operational context.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first explains what the tool does and its output, the second states the prerequisite and alternative action. Every word serves a clear purpose, and the most important information (the core functionality) comes first.
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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about prerequisites, method, and output format. It could mention what happens when no game is running or if the screenshot fails, but covers the essential operational context adequately given the tool's complexity.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single optional parameter (format with enum values and default). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 specific action ('capture a screenshot'), target resource ('running game viewport'), method ('via remote debugger'), and output format ('base64-encoded image'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on screenshot capture rather than connection management, project operations, or asset manipulation.
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('requires an active remote debugger connection') and provides a clear alternative action ('use connect_remote_debugger first') if the prerequisite isn't met. This gives the agent specific guidance on preconditions and dependency resolution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Connect to Godot editor's remote debugger to capture debug output in real-time. Use port 6006 for script debugger (print/errors) or 6007 for live editor sync.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Host address of the Godot editor (default: localhost) | localhost |
| port | No | Remote debugger port (default: 6006 for script debugger, 6007 for live sync) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's purpose and port usage but lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., whether it blocks other operations, requires specific editor states, or handles connection errors). It doesn't contradict annotations, but more behavioral context would be beneficial.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific usage guidance in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (connecting to a debugger) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but could improve by mentioning what happens after connection (e.g., how debug output is captured or if further steps are needed). It covers purpose and usage well but leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning port 6006/6007 use cases, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters.
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 specific action ('Connect to Godot editor's remote debugger') and the resource ('debug output in real-time'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'disconnect_remote_debugger' or 'get_debug_output' by focusing on establishing a live connection rather than retrieving stored data or disconnecting.
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?
It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by specifying port options: 'Use port 6006 for script debugger (print/errors) or 6007 for live editor sync.' This helps differentiate use cases and suggests alternatives based on the type of debug output needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new Godot scene file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory | |
| scenePath | Yes | Path where the scene file will be saved (relative to project) | |
| rootNodeType | No | Type of the root node (e.g., Node2D, Node3D) | Node2D |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a file but doesn't mention whether this is a write operation (implied), what permissions are needed, if it overwrites existing files, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details) or critical behavioral aspects like error handling or file system impacts, leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 action ('Create') and the resource ('new Godot scene file'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_scene' or 'add_node', which might have overlapping functionality in scene manipulation.
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 tool versus alternatives like 'save_scene' or 'add_node'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be open) or typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Disconnect from the Godot editor's remote debugger
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe what happens during disconnection (e.g., whether debug sessions terminate, if editor remains responsive, potential side effects). For a tool that presumably changes system state, this is insufficient behavioral context.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and front-loads the essential action. Every word earns its place.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, as a presumably state-changing tool with no annotations, it should provide more context about effects, prerequisites, and relationship to sibling tools like 'connect_remote_debugger' and 'stop_project' for a complete understanding.
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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 action ('Disconnect from') and target ('the Godot editor's remote debugger'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'connect_remote_debugger' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify complementary relationship.
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 or prerequisites. It doesn't mention whether this should be used after debugging sessions, what happens if called when not connected, or how it relates to 'connect_remote_debugger' and 'stop_project' siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Export a scene as a MeshLibrary resource
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory | |
| scenePath | Yes | Path to the scene file (.tscn) to export | |
| outputPath | Yes | Path where the mesh library (.res) will be saved | |
| meshItemNames | No | Optional: Names of specific mesh items to include (defaults to all) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without mentioning side effects such as file creation, overwriting behavior, or read-only implications. The burden falls on the description, which is insufficient.
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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words, effectively conveying the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description omits details about return values, error handling, or overwrite semantics. While acceptable for a simple export operation, these gaps prevent a higher score.
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 input schema already covers all parameters with clear descriptions, including file extensions and the default behavior of meshItemNames. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'a scene as a MeshLibrary resource', precisely distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_scene or save_scene.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where export_mesh_library is preferred over save_scene or other scene-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the current debug output and errors
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects, requirements (e.g., running project), return format, or error behavior. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.
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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently communicates the core function with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it 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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits important context such as when debug output is available, whether a project must be running, and the format of the returned output. With no annotations or output schema, these gaps make the description incomplete for an agent deciding to invoke it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; baseline 4 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current debug output and errors'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getters like get_project_info or get_uid, but the resource is unique enough that an agent can infer its purpose. However, 'current' is ambiguous (current project? current session?), so not a 5.
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., project running) or exclusion cases, and there is no reference to sibling tools like run_project or stop_project. An agent is left without context on when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the installed Godot version
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what it does, without mentioning side effects, error handling (e.g., if Godot is not installed), or whether any configuration is modified. For a simple getter this is a gap, but the lack of side effects is implicit.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no redundancy. The information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Perfectly concise.
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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies what is retrieved, but does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., version string) or behavior if Godot is absent. Given the simplicity, this is a minor omission.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly does not.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('installed Godot version'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_node or launch_editor, which are about different operations. No ambiguity.
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given its singular purpose and the lack of overlapping sibling getters, the usage is implied. There is no guidance on prerequisites or conditions, which could be added but is not critical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve metadata about a Godot project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or what permissions it requires. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially covers the behavior.
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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse quickly.
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?
There is no output schema or description of what metadata is returned. The term 'metadata' is vague and does not specify whether it returns project configuration, version info, or something else, leaving the agent without enough context to know what to expect.
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 parameter 'projectPath' is described as 'Path to the Godot project directory', which is clear and covers the basic meaning. However, since the schema already provides this description, the tool description adds no additional detail about path format, required existence, or edge cases.
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 action 'retrieve' and the target 'metadata about a Godot project', making the tool's basic purpose easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_godot_version or get_uid, which could also be considered metadata retrieval.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent has little context for choosing this over more specific retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the debug output captured from the remote debugger connection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires an active debugger connection, potential side effects, error conditions, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with a debugger.
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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 the complexity of interacting with a debugger, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the debug output contains, how it's formatted, or any dependencies (e.g., requiring an active remote debugger connection). For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs (none). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the zero-parameter case efficiently without unnecessary elaboration.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('debug output captured from the remote debugger connection'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_debug_output', leaving some ambiguity about the specific scope of 'remote' versus general debug output.
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 like 'get_debug_output' or in what context (e.g., after connecting a remote debugger). It lacks explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the UID for a specific file in a Godot project (for Godot 4.4+)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory | |
| filePath | Yes | Path to the file (relative to project) for which to get the UID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions required, or side effects. The tool could be assumed to be a simple getter, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving the behavior opaque.
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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and relevant version constraint.
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?
The tool is simple, and the description covers its basic purpose. However, it does not mention the return format, potential errors, or edge cases. While acceptable for a straightforward getter, it leaves some context incomplete.
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 input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 function: getting the UID for a specific file in a Godot project. It also specifies the Godot version constraint (4.4+), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like update_project_uids.
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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is obvious, there is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or where other tools (e.g., update_project_uids) should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Launch Godot editor for a specific project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any side effects, blocking behavior, or requirements (e.g., whether it opens a new window, requires an existing project, or modifies any files). This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's impact.
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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no filler. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently comprehensive. It lacks necessary details about behavior and usage, so while it is short, it doesn't earn its place by providing full value. A 3 reflects the balance between brevity and adequacy.
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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide enough context to call it correctly. It states the action but omits critical information such as whether the editor must be installed, whether the path must point to a valid project, and whether the call is blocking or returns immediately. This is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter projectPath is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the action, but the schema already explains the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't harm, but it also doesn't enhance the parameter meaning.
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 action (launch) and the resource (Godot editor) for a specific project. It distinguishes implicitly from siblings like run_project (which runs the project rather than opening the editor) and list_projects (which lists projects). However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative or the selection criteria, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.
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 tool versus alternatives such as run_project. The description does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or conditions that would lead an agent to select this tool over its siblings. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Godot projects in a directory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | Yes | Directory to search for Godot projects | |
| recursive | No | Whether to search recursively (default: false) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic listing action and adds no details about whether the operation is read-only, how Godot projects are identified, what the return format is, or how the recursive parameter behaves in practice.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place, and the core action and scope are immediately visible.
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 simple listing tool with two parameters, the description is minimally adequate: the schema covers parameter meanings. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify what the returned list contains (e.g., project names, paths) or whether directories without project.godot are ignored, leaving some contextual gaps.
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 100%, and both parameters are already documented clearly in the schema ('Directory to search for Godot projects' and 'Whether to search recursively (default: false)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Godot projects') and a scoping location ('in a directory'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_project_info or run_project, which target a single project or perform an action.
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 phrase 'in a directory' implies the tool is for project discovery in a filesystem location, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or follow-up tools like get_project_info for inspecting a specific project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Load a sprite into a Sprite2D node
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory | |
| scenePath | Yes | Path to the scene file (relative to project) | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the Sprite2D node (e.g., "root/Player/Sprite2D") | |
| texturePath | Yes | Path to the texture file (relative to project) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states that a sprite is loaded into a node, without mentioning whether this modifies the scene file, requires a saved scene, returns a value, or has any persistent effects. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior.
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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words or unnecessary details. It is concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the core action without distraction.
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 the lack of an output schema and the mutation-like nature of the action, the description is insufficiently contextual. It does not explain what 'load' means operationally (e.g., sets a texture property, replaces an existing asset), whether the scene must be saved, or what the expected result is. This leaves gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool correctly.
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 100%—all four parameters have individual descriptions explaining their meaning (e.g., 'Path to the texture file (relative to project)'). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 action (load) and the target resource (a sprite into a Sprite2D node), making the tool's primary purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_node, but the specific action is distinct enough for basic identification.
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, such as add_node or other scene modification tools. It omits any contextual conditions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the action description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run the Godot project and capture output
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory | |
| scene | No | Optional: Specific scene to run |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions 'capture output' but does not disclose side effects, blocking behavior, or whether the process continues running after invocation. The name 'run_project' implies execution but lacks specifics about what the user will observe.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the primary purpose without unnecessary words.
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?
No output schema is present, and the description does not clarify what 'capture output' means—whether it returns logs, exit codes, or streams. It also omits whether the tool blocks until the project closes or returns immediately. This leaves the agent uncertain about the expected behavior and return format.
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 schema already provides full coverage for both parameters with their descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a clear action ('Run') and object ('the Godot project'), plus a specific outcome ('capture output'). It is distinct from siblings like `launch_editor` or `stop_project`, though the phrase 'capture output' could be more detailed about what output is captured.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, like whether the project must exist or if the Godot editor must be closed, nor does it explain the effect of the optional 'scene' parameter in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Save changes to a scene file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory | |
| scenePath | Yes | Path to the scene file (relative to project) | |
| newPath | No | Optional: New path to save the scene to (for creating variants) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool mutates/saves a scene file, not whether it overwrites the existing file, how newPath behaves beyond the schema's variant hint, or what happens on failure.
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?
One short sentence with no filler or redundant content; the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, even though it sacrifices detail that is captured in other dimensions.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate but does not; it omits overwrite behavior, success/failure signaling, and any preconditions. The schema covers parameters, so the tool is not wholly underspecified, but the description alone is insufficient for confident invocation.
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 100%: projectPath and scenePath are described as paths, and newPath is explicitly documented as an optional path for creating variants. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'save' with the resource 'scene file,' clearly indicating a persistence operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from create_scene, though 'save changes' implies an existing scene, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.
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 given on when to use this tool versus create_scene or other scene tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are provided. The word 'changes' implies use after modifications, but that is not actionable enough to help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Stop the currently running Godot project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Stop' without explaining side effects (e.g., unsaved changes, process termination), error conditions (no running project), or whether it's reversible. For a destructive action, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, succinct sentence that directly states the action and target. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundancy or fluff.
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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core action. However, it doesn't mention what happens if no project is running or whether the tool returns any feedback, which would be useful but not critical for a stop action. The description is mostly complete given its simplicity.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. It adds no extra parameter meaning because none exist.
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 a specific action ('Stop') and a specific resource ('the currently running Godot project'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like run_project (which starts) and get_debug_output (which retrieves output), so an agent can easily infer its purpose.
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 implies usage (when you need to stop a running project) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Since it's a simple action with no parameters, the context is clear, but it doesn't provide explicit routing like naming run_project as the counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update UID references in a Godot project by resaving resources (for Godot 4.4+)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions resaving resources, implying file modifications, but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or whether it may alter many files. The version requirement is useful but 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It avoids extraneous detail and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what it does and the version constraint, but omits guidance on when to use it and potential side effects. Given the simplicity, it is not severely incomplete but lacks context an agent might need to decide correctly.
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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage with a clear description ('Path to the Godot project directory'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for a fully documented parameter but does not enhance understanding further.
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 a specific verb ('Update'), a resource ('UID references in a Godot project'), and a method ('by resaving resources'). It clearly identifies the tool's function and includes a version constraint (Godot 4.4+), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_uid that retrieve UIDs.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a version requirement, but does not explain scenarios (e.g., after moving or renaming files) or when to prefer other project tools. The intended use is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
add_nodecapture_screenshotconnect_remote_debuggercreate_scenedisconnect_remote_debuggerexport_mesh_libraryget_debug_outputget_godot_versionget_project_infoget_remote_debug_outputget_uidlaunch_editorlist_projectsload_spriterun_projectsave_scenestop_projectupdate_project_uidsScored across 18 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between get_debug_output and get_remote_debug_output, which could cause confusion as both relate to debug output. Additionally, tools like launch_editor and run_project might be ambiguous in their execution context, but descriptions help clarify their roles.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as add_node, capture_screenshot, and connect_remote_debugger. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to understand.
With 18 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a Godot MCP server covering project management, debugging, and scene operations. It feels comprehensive without being overwhelmingly heavy, though it could be trimmed for tighter focus.
The tool surface covers key areas like project handling, debugging, and scene manipulation with minor gaps, such as missing tools for editing node properties or managing resources beyond UIDs. However, core workflows are well-supported, allowing agents to perform essential tasks effectively.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to control Unreal E…
Control Unreal Engine to browse assets, import content, and manage levels and sequences. Automate…
Drive real devices from your AI Coding tool. Embed a client SDK (Unity, Godot, Flutter, iOS/macOS, Android, React Native, Web) in your app, then capture screenshots, traverse the UI tree, inject taps and key events, and run automated test tasks on the physical device over a secure relay.
Drive a live Cinevva game session: edit game files, import CC0 assets, preview changes.
