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 "Install 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether the addition is immediately saved or requires a separate save operation, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and every word earns its place. No structural issues or verbosity.
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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the node is added, what the return value might be, error conditions, or how this integrates with the broader Godot workflow. The agent would have significant gaps in understanding how to properly use this tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets 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 action ('Add a node') and the target ('to an existing scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_scene' by specifying it works on existing scenes, but doesn't fully differentiate from other potential node manipulation tools that might exist.
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 the scene to exist), doesn't specify when this is appropriate versus creating a new scene, and doesn't reference any sibling tools that might be related alternatives.
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 full burden but only states what the tool does at a high level. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this overwrites existing files, requires specific project states, has side effects on the editor, or returns any confirmation/error information.
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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error conditions, or how this integrates with the Godot workflow. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed.
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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new Godot scene file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_scene' or 'add_node', which might have overlapping functionality in the Godot context.
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 'save_scene' or 'add_node'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for creating a new scene versus modifying existing ones.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Export' implies a write operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has side effects on the scene, leaving significant gaps for a tool that creates output files.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent 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?
Given the tool's complexity (exporting scenes to MeshLibrary resources with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a MeshLibrary resource is, the export process, or potential outcomes, leaving the agent with incomplete context for 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented there. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how mesh items are named or format details, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score.
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 ('Export') and resource ('a scene as a MeshLibrary resource'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_scene' or 'create_scene' that might also handle scene-related operations, preventing a perfect score.
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, such as needing a valid Godot project or scene, or compare it to siblings like 'save_scene' for saving scenes directly, leaving the agent without usage context.
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 burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is read-only, requires specific permissions, returns real-time vs. cached data, or has rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a debugging 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, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and target. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless 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 debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'debug output and errors' includes, format, timing, or how it differs from 'get_remote_debug_output', leaving the agent with incomplete 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't add param details, earning a high baseline score for not over-explaining.
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 target ('debug output and errors'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'get_remote_debug_output', which appears to serve a similar but distinct purpose, preventing a perfect score.
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 'get_remote_debug_output' or other debugging-related siblings. The description implies a general debugging context but lacks explicit usage instructions or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the version information returns, or any rate limits or constraints. The description is minimal and lacks 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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or output format. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more completeness would be beneficial.
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 lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'installed Godot version', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_project_info' or 'get_debug_output' which also retrieve information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 when this tool is appropriate versus other 'get_' tools like 'get_project_info' or 'get_debug_output', nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for its use.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what metadata is included, whether it's cached, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what metadata is returned, potential errors, or how it interacts with other tools like 'list_projects'. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more detail is needed to fully understand its use and limitations.
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, with the single parameter 'projectPath' clearly documented as 'Path to the Godot project directory'. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high 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 action ('Retrieve metadata') and resource ('about a Godot project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_godot_version', which might retrieve related but different information, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
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 'list_projects' or 'get_godot_version'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate, offering only a basic statement of function.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's purpose but does not describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it reads from disk or memory, error handling for invalid paths, performance implications, or if it modifies any state. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational traits.
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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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 file operations in Godot projects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a UID is, how it's used, or what the return value looks like (e.g., string format, error cases). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable tool 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining UID format or path conventions. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 ('UID for a specific file in a Godot project'), specifying the target context (Godot 4.4+). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_info' or 'update_project_uids', which might also involve UIDs, but the focus on a specific file is clear.
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. For example, it does not mention if this is for debugging, asset management, or when 'update_project_uids' might be more appropriate. The description implies usage for Godot 4.4+ projects but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on what 'launch' entails—e.g., whether it opens an editor window, requires specific permissions, has side effects like starting a process, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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, clear sentence with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning a high score for efficiency.
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 potential complexity (launching an editor), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after launch, error handling, or interaction with other tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'projectPath' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score for high 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 action ('Launch') and resource ('Godot editor for a specific project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_project' or 'list_projects', which could involve similar concepts, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 'run_project' or 'list_projects'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but does not cover important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts (e.g., for large directories), error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 listing projects (which may involve file system operations and output formatting), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like return values, error cases, or limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('directory' and 'recursive') in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.
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 ('List') and resource ('Godot projects in a directory'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_project_info' or 'update_project_uids', which might also involve project-related operations, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
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 'get_project_info' for detailed project metadata or other sibling tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, offering minimal usage direction beyond the basic action.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Load') but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, a mutation, what permissions are needed, or potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing textures). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it 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?
Given the complexity of a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, or how it fits into the broader Godot workflow, making it inadequate for full contextual 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (e.g., 'Path to the Godot project directory'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without adding extra 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 ('Load') and resource ('a sprite into a Sprite2D node'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'add_node' or 'create_scene', which might also involve sprite manipulation in Godot projects, so it's not fully specific to sibling context.
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 'add_node' or 'create_scene'. The description implies usage for loading sprites but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual scenarios, 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.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions 'capture output' as a behavioral trait. It fails to disclose critical details like whether this is a blocking operation, error handling, resource usage, or interaction with other tools, which 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for safe and 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses these inputs, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 ('run') and target ('Godot project') with an additional function ('capture output'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'launch_editor' or 'stop_project', which prevents a perfect score.
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 'launch_editor' or 'stop_project'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
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 states 'Save changes' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify if this overwrites the original file, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid paths), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 that front-loads the core action ('Save changes to a scene file') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy for an agent 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?
Given the tool involves file mutation (saving changes) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in a Godot project environment.
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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'scenePath' and 'newPath' or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Save changes') and resource ('to a scene file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_scene' or 'update_project_uids', which might involve similar file operations in a Godot context.
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 (e.g., if the scene must be loaded or edited first), exclusions, or how it differs from tools like 'create_scene' or 'update_project_uids', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Stop' implies a potentially destructive action, it doesn't clarify whether this terminates processes abruptly, saves state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is minimal and misses important behavioral context for a tool that likely changes system state.
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 that communicates the essential action without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the key information immediately.
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 apparent complexity (stopping a running project likely involves system changes) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It identifies what the tool does but doesn't address behavioral implications, success criteria, or error conditions that would help an agent use it 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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on the tool's action rather than unnecessary parameter explanations.
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 ('Stop') and target resource ('the currently running Godot project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_project' or 'launch_editor'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 context ('currently running') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disconnect_remote_debugger' or 'get_project_info'. It provides basic situational awareness but lacks explicit guidance about prerequisites or exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Update'), suggesting potential destructive changes, but doesn't disclose risks (e.g., data loss, irreversible changes), permissions needed, or side effects like performance impact. The mention of 'resaving resources' hints at file modifications, but lacks detail on what gets altered or safety considerations.
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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Update UID references in a Godot project') and adds necessary context ('by resaving resources' and 'for Godot 4.4+'). Every phrase adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the tool's purpose and version constraint but lacks behavioral details (risks, effects) and usage context. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more safety and operational guidance to be fully complete.
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%, with the single parameter 'projectPath' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying the tool operates on a Godot project directory. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, 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 action ('Update UID references') and the resource ('in a Godot project'), with the specific mechanism 'by resaving resources' and version constraint 'for Godot 4.4+'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_uid' or 'save_scene' by focusing on UID reference updates rather than retrieval or general saving. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'run_project' or 'export_mesh_library'), keeping it at 4 rather than 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 mentions the Godot 4.4+ version constraint, but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., after project migration, to fix broken references) or prerequisites. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it offers minimal usage context.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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_uidsMost 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.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
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 a live Cinevva game session: edit game files, import CC0 assets, preview changes.
Live browser debugging for AI assistants — DOM, console, network via MCP.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LeeSinLiang/godot-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
