Godot MCP

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.