Godot Universal MCP

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are well-separated by domain prefixes (scene, script, file, project, runtime, editor). Within each domain the purpose is distinct. Minor potential confusion exists between godot_project_search (plain text) and godot_project_grep (regex), which overlap heavily, and between godot_scene_get_tree and godot_runtime_tree (both trees but different targets).
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent godot_<domain>_<verb> pattern (godot_scene_get_node, godot_script_read, godot_file_write, godot_project_info). A few deviate or use awkward phrasing like godot_scene_find_broken_references and godot_script_todo_index which are noun-heavy rather than verb_action. Overall recognizable but not perfectly uniform.
Tool Count2/5
36 tools is a very large surface for a single server. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g. file operations and project operations), and the count makes it heavy. This is near the top end of the scale and risks overwhelming agents.
Completeness5/5
The coverage is remarkably thorough for the Godot ecosystem: file CRUD, script lifecycle (create/read/patch/list), scene parsing and validation, runtime control, editor integration, and project health/analysis. The scan, doctor, and grep/search tools add useful discovery capabilities. No obvious dead ends in the core workflows.
Average 2.8/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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. The description doesn't specify what the search returns (matched lines, file paths, context), whether it's regex-cased, whether it respects gitignore, how many matches are returned by default, or any limits. For a search tool with a maxMatches parameter, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is efficient and waste-free. It's appropriately short for the task, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavior detail. Still, conciseness itself is well-executed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters (one required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the return format, default flag behavior, match limits, or scope of 'project files.' Compared to other search tools in the sibling list, this one is underspecified for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters (pattern, flags, maxMatches). It mentions the regex concept but provides no detail on what 'flags' means (case-insensitivity, multiline, etc.) or what maxMatches controls. The agent must infer all of this from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search project files using a regular expression' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (project files), distinguishing it from most sibling tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from closely related tools like godot_project_search or godot_script_symbols, and 'project files' is somewhat broad without specifying scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_project_search, godot_file_list, or godot_script_symbols. There's no mention of whether it searches all project files or specific types, nor any exclusions or caveats about performance on large projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Apply a line-based patch' implies mutation but doesn't disclose whether the operation is destructive to existing content, whether line numbers are 0-indexed or 1-indexed, whether the patch is validated before application, or what happens if line ranges are invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is compact, but it errs on the side of under-specification rather than conciseness. There is room for one or two additional sentences clarifying line indexing and behavior without becoming verbose. It's not bloated, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It doesn't explain the line range semantics, indexing convention, path resolution context, or return value/confirmation behavior. The sibling godot_script_patch suggests a similar tool deserves differentiation. Given the schema provides no descriptions and there are no annotations, more burden falls on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 4 undocumented parameters. 'Line-based patch' hints that startLine and endLine define the patch region, but it doesn't explain the indexing convention (0-based vs 1-based), whether endLine is inclusive, what the replacement string replaces (lines in range vs. lines between), or how path is resolved. The replacement semantics are under-specified for a tool where off-by-one errors are likely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Apply a line-based patch to a text file' which uses a clear verb (apply) and specifies the resource (text file) and method (line-based). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling godot_script_patch or godot_file_write, which could also modify file content. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from closely related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't clarify when to prefer this over godot_file_write (full file overwrite) or godot_script_patch (script-specific patching). No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are given despite a rich sibling set where usage decisions would be genuinely ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it triggers a filesystem rescan, how long it takes, whether it has side effects on the project index, or what the return shape looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, since it omits critical details about the tool's behavior and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should be substantially more informative. The scan result type, the maxEntries semantics, and the relationship to sibling scan/search tools are all absent. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool with appropriate parameters and interpret its output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the maxEntries parameter, but it provides zero information about what maxEntries controls or caps. With 1 optional parameter undocumented in both schema and description, the agent has no way to know whether to set this value or what units/meaning it carries.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Scan the project for scenes, scripts and resources' which names a verb (scan) and resource types, but is vague about what 'scan' produces or what its scope is. Among siblings, there are many other scan-like tools (godot_scene_list, godot_script_list, godot_project_search, godot_editor_filesystem_scan) that could overlap with this function, and the description doesn't differentiate its result from those.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_project_search, godot_scene_list, godot_script_list, or godot_editor_filesystem_scan. The description provides no context about whether this is a static scan vs a filesystem rescan, nor what differentiates it from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description states only the core action (search) but doesn't disclose whether the search is case-sensitive, recursive, whether it covers binary files, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. No wasted words. However, while brevity is good, this borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, given how much critical detail is absent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. A search tool should disclose behavior around case sensitivity, recursion depth, file type coverage, result pagination via maxMatches, and error conditions. None of this is present, making the tool risky to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds virtually nothing about the two parameters (query, maxMatches). No information about query format, whether maxMatches is optional, its default behavior, or its upper/lower bounds. With 2 undocumented parameters and zero description coverage, the description must compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search project files for plain text' clearly states a verb+resource with scope (project files, plain text). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like godot_project_grep or godot_file_read which overlap in search/read functionality. The purpose is concrete but the distinction from siblings is unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like godot_project_grep (which likely handles regex/grep-style searches). No exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided. The agent has no way to decide between this and sibling search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Restart' implies the tool stops and starts a runtime, but it doesn't disclose side effects, whether it preserves state/arguments, what happens if no runtime is running, or what the returned result indicates. This is a meaningful gap for a state-changing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise — a single sentence with zero waste. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently trimmed; the brevity reflects a lack of content more than careful editing. Still, for what it contains, it's clean.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a runtime lifecycle operation with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. For a mutation-style tool, the description should explain the args parameter's meaning, restart behavior, and prerequisites but provides only a one-line statement. Given the context signals indicating heavy undocumented surface area, this is notably incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The args parameter is undocumented at 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain what 'args' does — are these passed to the restarted process, or are they CLI flags for the restart operation? Nothing in the description clarifies the single parameter's purpose, which is a significant gap given the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Restart a managed Godot runtime process' has a clear verb (restart) and resource (managed Godot runtime process). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like godot_run_project and godot_stop_project, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself. The meaning is understandable but terse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There's no guidance on when to use restart vs run or stop+run, no mention of state prerequisites (e.g., must the runtime already be running?), and no mention of the args parameter's role in restarting. The description gives no context to help an agent decide when restart is appropriate versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 doesn't state that this launches a process, what happens to an already-running project, whether it blocks, or what failure modes exist (e.g., no binary found, already running). It also doesn't differentiate from godot_restart_project behaviorally — both involve running the project. For a launch tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise — a single sentence with no filler. While it's under-specified, there's zero wasted text. For scoring conciseness as a positive trait, it earns a 4 because nothing is extraneous, though brevity here veers toward incomplete rather than economical.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that launches a runtime process with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is substantially incomplete. It doesn't explain the args parameter semantics (could be CLI flags passed to Godot), what projectPath expects (absolute path? relative?), return behavior, or error conditions. Sibling tools like godot_runtime_status and godot_runtime_logs suggest a runtime monitoring ecosystem, but this description doesn't connect to that context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the two parameters (args, projectPath) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'project' but never references either parameter. With 0% coverage and no parameter info in the description, this fails to compensate for the gap — the agent has no idea what args or projectPath accept or how they're used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Launch the Godot project' which is a clear verb+resource pairing. However, the conditional 'when a Godot binary can be discovered' is somewhat vague and doesn't specify what happens when no binary is found. It provides basic purpose but lacks the specificity needed to fully distinguish it from siblings like godot_restart_project or godot_stop_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like godot_restart_project (restart), godot_stop_project (stop), and godot_run_project (run), the description doesn't clarify that this is the initial-launch tool. The conditional 'when a Godot binary can be discovered' hints at a prerequisite but doesn't explain how to confirm the binary exists or what to do if it cannot be found.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether reading logs is destructive, whether recent logs are retained upon restart, whether logs are ordered, or how far back they reach. The phrase 'from the managed process or bridge' hints at a dual source but offers no further behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short at one sentence, which is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance. It's not well-stocked with the detail needed to justify its existence given the ambiguous 'managed process or bridge' phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is under-specified. It doesn't describe the return shape (array of strings? structured objects?), whether logs include timestamps/levels, or how limit affects output. Given constraints, this tool requires more descriptive support than it provides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter's meaning, units, range, or behavior (e.g., does limit truncate newest or oldest entries? what's the default?). The description provides zero parameter-specific information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it returns runtime logs from 'the managed process or bridge' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from runtime_status and runtime_perf but doesn't clarify what 'runtime logs' means in Godot context (GDScript print output? engine stderr? OS console?), and the reference to 'managed process or bridge' is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs godot_runtime_status, godot_runtime_perf, or godot_editor_output. It doesn't clarify whether this captures script print/debug output, engine errors, or stdout/stderr, nor whether logs are polled, streamed, or pulled once. No exclusions or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It doesn't state whether this is read-only or mutation, whether it requires an open project, whether it scans the whole project or a single scene, or what the output format looks like. For a 'find/check' tool the read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no waste. It errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity, and there is nothing redundant to trim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with zero annotation coverage, the description must compensate heavily. It provides none of the behavioral detail (read-only vs mutation, scope, output format, error conditions). The lack of any guidance on what 'path' refers to and what results look like makes this under-specified for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'path' has no description or format clarifying what it should be (file path, directory, scene path in project?). The description name mentions 'scene' but it's unclear whether path points to a .tscn file, a folder, or a Godot node path string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find broken scene resource references' uses a specific verb (find) and resource (broken scene resource references), giving a clear purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like godot_scene_validate or godot_project_doctor which could plausibly also detect broken references, so sibling distinction is lacking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings like godot_scene_validate, godot_project_doctor, and godot_scene_get_tree could overlap in functionality, yet no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. Setting a property is an in-place mutation that may overwrite existing values irreversibly, yet the description does not disclose whether changes persist to disk, whether they require saving/reloading via godot_editor_save_all, whether validation occurs, or what happens to value formatting/types in the file. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It states the core action directly. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness that packs value into few words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool (setting a property) with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and 4 required parameters. The description does not compensate for these gaps: it doesn't explain the serialization format of 'value', whether the operation validates type consistency, whether it requires the project to be loaded/open, or how it interacts with the running Godot instance. For a write operation on project files, this is substantially incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 4 undocumented parameters. The description names 'property' and 'node property' but does not clarify what format 'value' takes (string serialization?), what nodePath syntax is expected (Godot path syntax like 'Node/Child'), or what 'path' refers to (the .tscn file path vs the node path). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set a node property in a .tscn file.' clearly identifies the verb (set), resource (node property), and target file type (.tscn). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling godot_scene_get_node or godot_file_patch, and doesn't clarify whether this edits the file on disk, modifies the running scene, or requires a project context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. With siblings like godot_scene_get_node, godot_file_patch, and godot_scene_validate, the description gives no context on when setting a property directly is appropriate, whether it modifies the actual .tscn file persistently, or how it differs from patching the file content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 doesn't state what "validate" checks for (syntax? resource paths? node hierarchy?), what happens on invalid files (error? exit code?), or whether it's a read-only operation. It could be a read operation (likely) but nothing confirms this, and there's no output schema to clarify results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specification rather than efficient writing - the brevity leaves critical gaps in purpose, behavior, and usage. A single-sentence description can be high-scoring if it's dense with meaning, but "Validate a .tscn file structure" is too thin.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It fails to explain return values, validation criteria, failure behavior, or how it differs from godot_scene_find_broken_references which sounds like a more specific validation sibling. A one-line description is inadequate for a tool operating on Godot project files.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter (path) whose meaning is reasonably inferable from the tool name and description. The description doesn't add any details about path format (absolute vs relative, file extension handling, project-relative paths). While the single parameter is simple, the description contributes nothing beyond what the schema shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states "Validate a .tscn file structure" which uses a specific verb (Validate) and resource (.tscn file). However, it's quite terse and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like godot_scene_find_broken_references or godot_scene_get_node, which also operate on scene files. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what "validate" entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many scene-related siblings (godot_scene_find_broken_references, godot_scene_get_node, godot_scene_list, godot_scene_get_tree), the description offers zero differentiation. There's no indication of when validation is appropriate or what problems it detects versus the broken-references checker.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It doesn't state whether this overwrites existing files, whether it integrates with the Godot editor filesystem scan, what happens with a partial template, or whether the class_name registration is automatic. For a file-creation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified — it doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful elaboration because it communicates so little. It's brief but lacks the substance needed to justify the brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine what output to expect, whether creation is destructive, how parameters combine into the final file, or how this differs from generic file-write tools. The complexity is moderate, and the description does not rise to meet it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The description mentions 'template parts' which vaguely hints at how body/extends/className relate, but it doesn't explain the role of each parameter, e.g., whether extends is appended as 'extends X', how className maps to class_name, or how body is combined with the template. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema, leaving 4 parameters under-explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new GDScript file from template parts' which identifies the verb (create) and resource (GDScript file). However, it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like godot_script_patch (which modifies) or godot_file_write (which writes files) — the 'from template parts' phrasing is vague about what template parts means. It's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't clarify when one would use this vs godot_file_write (generic file creation), godot_script_patch (script modification), or why a dedicated script tool exists. The 'from template parts' hint is implied but never explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Truncation details' hints at output-limiting behavior but doesn't specify threshold behaviors, whether results are sorted, how ignores are configured, or what the default behavior is with no parameters supplied. The description is vague about what the user would actually observe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action (list project tree) and hints at key behaviors (ignore, truncation). Could arguably add slightly more behavioral detail, but it is efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, this description should do more work. The tool has zero required parameters, so the behavior with defaults is ambiguous. The two parameters handle depth and entry limits but the tool's output format, ordering, and the meaning of 'ignore support' remain unexplained, making it incomplete for a tool with this much ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — both maxDepth and maxEntries are described in the schema. The description mentions 'truncation details' which loosely maps to maxEntries, and 'ignore support' hints at traversal behavior, but it adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List the project tree with ignore support and truncation details' which identifies the resource (project tree) and verb (list). However, it's somewhat ambiguous relative to siblings like godot_scene_get_tree and godot_runtime_tree — it doesn't clarify what differentiates a 'project tree' from a 'scene tree' or 'runtime tree', which would be important for tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'ignore support and truncation details' but doesn't explain what that means in practice or when truncation might occur. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given despite a large sibling set with similar tree-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 doesn't state whether the project must be running, what happens if no project is running (does it fail silently?), what the screenshot captures (viewport vs full window), or how the image is returned (base64 blob? file path?). The 'from the bridge' phrasing is vague about threading/blocking behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero fluff. The description is appropriately brief for a tool with minimal surface area (one optional parameter). However, the brevity leans toward under-specification rather than polished conciseness—there's room to add a useful clause about return format without bloating it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a runtime action with zero annotations and no output schema, more context is warranted. It doesn't clarify prerequisites (running project), failure modes, or deliverable format. The single optional parameter is simple, keeping the completeness need low, but the behavioral unknowns leave a meaningful gap for an action-type tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter is undocumented in the description. There's one optional parameter 'encoding' with an enum (base64/data-uri), which is self-explanatory. Since there's only one optional enum parameter that's fairly obvious from its name and value choices, the schema carries most of the meaning. A baseline 3 is appropriate—the description adds no explicit parameter value beyond the enum names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fetch a runtime screenshot from the bridge' states a clear verb+resource (fetch screenshot from the bridge). It's reasonably clear it captures a visual snapshot of the running game, but it doesn't clarify what aspect is captured (viewport? whole window?), where it saves, or whether it blocks until capture succeeds. The purpose is understandable but somewhat terse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like godot_runtime_status, godot_runtime_logs, and godot_runtime_perf all relate to runtime inspection, and the description doesn't explain when a screenshot is the right choice (e.g., when visual state matters) versus when another runtime tool would be more appropriate. No when-not-to-use guidance and no mention that a project must be running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides almost none: no mention of whether the tool mutates the file on disk, whether it requires the project to be running, whether changes are reversible, what happens on invalid line numbers, or whether this triggers a filesystem rescan. For a mutating tool, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. It earns its place but is under-specified rather than concise in the positive sense; the brevity is appropriate for what's there, which is why it doesn't drop lower.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description is severely under-specified. For a mutating 4-parameter tool, the agent needs to know line indexing semantics, whether the change is persisted immediately, error behavior for out-of-range lines, and how this differs from godot_file_patch. None of this is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It does not: the description never mentions path, startLine, endLine, or replacement, nor the semantics of line-based patching (e.g., whether endLine is inclusive, 0-indexed vs 1-indexed, whether line numbers refer to the file after previous patches). The 0-indexing/off-by-one ambiguity for line positions is a critical detail that's completely unaddressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Apply a line-based patch to a script file' clearly states a verb (apply) and resource (script file) with a scope qualifier (line-based patch). However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling godot_file_patch tool, and 'line-based patch' is somewhat vague about whether it's a unified diff, add/remove ranges, or something else specific to Godot scripts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling godot_file_patch or godot_script_read. With 30+ sibling tools including godot_file_patch and godot_script_create, the description provides no context for choosing this tool over alternatives. There's no mention of requiring the file to be a .gd script, when a full rewrite via script_create would be preferable, or whether this patches the on-disk file only or also updates the running scene.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does imply deletion is destructive, but it doesn't clarify behavior when deleting a directory without the recursive flag set, what happens with non-existent paths, or whether there's any confirmation or safety mechanism. The one useful detail is that it handles both files AND directories.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste. The description is efficient and to the point. It earns its place but arguably under-specifies given the destructive nature and ambiguous recursive parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation. For a tool that permanently deletes project assets, the description should clearly explain recursive behavior, error handling, and restore/recovery options. At only 7 words and with 2 undocumented parameters, it is far from complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds nothing about the parameters. 'recursive' is a boolean but its meaning (whether to delete directories with contents recursively) is not explained anywhere. The description says 'file or directory' but doesn't connect which parameter controls which scenario, leaving the recursive semantics entirely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a file or directory inside the project.' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (file or directory within the project). However, it doesn't mention the 'recursive' option or distinguish nuances from sibling tools like godot_file_move or godot_file_write. It's clear but minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool. It doesn't state when deletion is appropriate vs. destructive, doesn't mention safety considerations, and doesn't contrast with any sibling tools. For a destructive operation, this is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 doesn't state whether moving overwrites existing files, whether the move is reversible, whether files outside the project can be targeted, or how the Godot editor filesystem is affected. For a mutating operation on the project, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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 short for the operation. Could arguably add a touch more detail, but as written it's economical and gets the core message across.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't cover path conventions, overwrite behavior, error conditions, or the return value. Multiple gaps exist for a tool that modifies project files, which could have meaningful consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level information. The parameters 'from' and 'to' are self-descriptive at a basic level, but there's no guidance on path format (absolute/relative), filename constraints, or whether directories can be specified. The description must compensate for 0% schema coverage but provides no parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Move or rename a file inside the project.' It specifies both move and rename functionality, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_file_delete, godot_file_read, and godot_file_write. The purpose is unambiguous though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention whether paths are relative to the project root, what limitations exist (e.g., cannot move directories), or when godot_file_patch might be more appropriate. Sibling tools exist for other file operations but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not state whether overwrite behavior is in effect, whether the write triggers a filesystem rescan, whether the file must be under a specific subdirectory, or what happens on failure. 'text file' implies encoding but doesn't specify UTF-8 or line-ending handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, more disclosure is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential purpose with verb and location. No wasted words. Could arguably add a second sentence about overwrite or directory behavior without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A file-write tool with 3 parameters (2 required) and zero description coverage on all parameters, plus no annotations and no output schema, needs significantly more description. Critical gaps: overwrite semantics, path resolution relative to project root, effect of createDirectories=false when parent dirs don't exist, and any side effects on the Godot editor. The single-sentence description leaves the agent guessing on key behaviors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% — none of the parameters (path, content, createDirectories) have descriptions. The description compensates only marginally: it clarifies 'text file' and 'project root' context, but doesn't explain the semantics of createDirectories (a boolean that presumably creates missing parent directories), nor clarify whether path is relative to project root, whether it must have a specific extension, or content encoding. With zero schema coverage, the description should carry much more weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (write) + resource (text file) + location scope (inside Godot project root). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like godot_file_read, godot_file_patch, and godot_file_delete. It doesn't differentiate between create vs overwrite behavior, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus godot_file_patch or godot_script_create, which both may overlap with file writing operations. No mention of whether it overwrites existing files, requires the project to be running, or interacts with the editor filesystem scan. The description gives no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not describe what happens if the path or nodePath is invalid, whether this is a read-only operation, what the return value looks like, or whether the .tscn file needs to be loaded/parsed first. Being a read operation, it likely has no side effects, but the description never states this explicitly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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 verb and clear subject. However, it could arguably be considered under-specified rather than concise, given the missing parameter semantics and behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description carries nearly the full burden of communicating tool behavior. For a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, the description provides minimal guidance beyond the core purpose. It doesn't explain return format, error behavior, path conventions, or how this relates to other scene tools—leaving an agent guessing on crucial invocation details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema properties have no descriptions or types beyond being strings. The description names the two parameters implicitly (path, nodePath) in its phrasing but adds no additional meaning—it doesn't explain what 'path' refers to (filesystem path to .tscn vs node path) or clarify the distinction between the two string parameters. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Get a scene node by its path from a .tscn file.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and the resource type (.tscn file). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling godot_scene_get_tree or godot_scene_set_node_property, though the purpose is fairly self-evident given the tool name and description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_scene_get_tree (which retrieves the whole tree) or godot_scene_set_node_property (which modifies a node). The description gives no context about when a single-node lookup is preferable to retrieving the full tree or about path format conventions (e.g., relative vs absolute node paths).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'read' (implying non-destructive), but doesn't mention anything about being read-only, performance characteristics, encoding handling, or interaction with the Godot editor's project state. For a read operation the ambiguity is low, but there's essentially no behavioral detail beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste, appropriately front-loaded. It's efficient, though it's arguably too sparse — this borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry substantial weight. A one-line description for a tool with an unexplained path parameter and no documented behavior is incomplete for an agent trying to determine path format, return format, or how it differs from godot_file_read on a .gd file.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one parameter (path) that lacks any schema-level description. The description does not compensate by explaining what 'path' should be - whether it's an absolute filesystem path, a Godot res:// path, or a project-relative path. This is a meaningful gap because siblings like godot_project_grep or godot_file_read may use different path conventions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Read a GDScript or C# script file'), clearly identifying the purpose. Distinguishes from siblings like godot_script_list (lists scripts), godot_script_patch (modifies scripts), and godot_file_read (reads general files). The distinction from godot_file_read is implied but not explicitly stated, so it doesn't quite reach a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs godot_file_read or godot_script_list. There's no context about scenarios where this is preferred, nor exclusions. The intended use case (reading a script by path vs listing them or reading arbitrary files) is only implicit through the tool naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it refreshes the editor's file tree, whether it can disrupt running scenes, performance implications, or whether it potentially re-imports assets). For a tool that triggers a scan 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with zero filler. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise — there's room for one or two additional clarifying clauses about behavior or context without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a no-parameter action with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to explain what a 'filesystem scan' entails, what it accomplishes, when it's needed, or any side effects. For a tool that triggers an editor-level operation, this is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters that need explanation. The 'nothing extra' baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing to clarify semantically.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource ('Trigger a Godot editor filesystem scan'), which identifies the action. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like godot_project_scan, godot_file_list, or godot_editor_save_all — a scan is somewhat ambiguous as to what it refreshes or detects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as godot_project_scan, godot_file_list, or godot_project_search. It does not explain when a filesystem scan is needed (e.g., after external file changes) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'health checks' which implies a read/diagnostic operation, but doesn't disclose what data it inspects, whether it mutates anything (e.g., repairs found issues), what failure conditions look like, or what the output contains. With zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Run health checks') and appends the secondary scope (bridge connectivity). It's appropriately minimal for a zero-parameter tool, though it could gain slightly from a clearer scoping phrase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry all the burden. For a diagnostic tool of this nature, it doesn't explain what a successful or failing check looks like, what the return/report format is, or whether it can repair issues. A tool named 'doctor' implies diagnosis and possibly remediation, but the description only hints at running checks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params equals a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies this is a no-argument diagnostic tool without needing to document parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Run health checks against the project installation and bridge connectivity'). It's clear but somewhat ambiguous about what a 'health check' concretely covers — whether it validates the project files, the editor connection, or both. Among siblings it's reasonably distinct (no other sibling does 'health checks'), though it shares the project-doctor naming with the project info/status tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't say when to run health checks, what prerequisites exist (e.g., project must be loaded / editor must be connected), or how it relates to godot_project_info, godot_project_scan, or godot_editor_status. The 'bridge connectivity' part hints at a use case but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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's a read-only fetch operation (implied by 'fetch'), but it doesn't describe whether the tool requires a running project, what happens if the bridge is down, what specific metrics are included, or the format of the returned stats. Without annotations, more behavioral detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence, no wasted words. It's appropriately brief though slightly terse - one could argue it omits useful detail that would make it longer but more helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is very thin. For a performance stats tool, the agent would benefit from knowing what metrics are available (e.g., FPS, frame time, memory, draw calls) and any runtime requirements. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description to explain what data comes back, which it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies since there's nothing the description needs to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Fetch runtime performance stats from the bridge' which identifies the action (fetch), resource (runtime performance stats), and source (bridge). It's clear enough but generic; it doesn't specify what specific performance metrics are returned (FPS, memory, CPU, etc.), which would help distinguish detailed performance data from the runtime status tool that also reports runtime state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. There's no distinction between when to use this tool versus godot_runtime_status or godot_runtime_logs, which are sibling tools in the same runtime category. The description doesn't state whether this is for ongoing monitoring, debugging performance issues, or something else.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosing behavior. It states it parses and returns a node tree but doesn't mention what happens on invalid/malformed .tscn files, whether it touches the running project, whether the file must exist, or response/error format. For a parsing tool that could fail on malformed input, minimal failure behavior disclosure exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise declarative sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose clearly. For a simple one-parameter tool this brevity is appropriate, though it omits important details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is fairly simple (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), but the parameter semantics gap (what 'path' means) and lack of failure behavior disclosure leave meaningful gaps. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate, and it doesn't address path format or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter ('path'). The description doesn't specify whether 'path' is relative to the project root, an absolute filesystem path, or a resource path (e.g., res://). This is critical ambiguity for a filesystem-adjacent tool and the description fails to clarify it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Parse a .tscn file') and clearly states output ('return its node tree'). It distinguishes reasonably from sibling tools like godot_scene_list (which likely lists scenes) and godot_runtime_tree (runtime tree), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't clarify how this differs from godot_scene_get_node, godot_scene_list, or godot_runtime_tree, nor whether it applies to static .tscn files on disk vs. loaded scenes. For a tool with many scene-related siblings, this is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 doesn't state whether the output is truncated, what format the output takes, whether it blocks while the editor is running, how 'recent' is bounded, or whether it requires the editor to be currently open. The word 'through the bridge' hints at an integration mechanism but doesn't explain behaviors like error handling or buffer retention.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler words, front-loaded with the core action. However, given the minimal content, the compactness comes at the cost of missing important usage and behavioral details that could be added without bloating.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot know what the returned data structure looks like, how much 'recent' history is kept, the semantics of the 'limit' parameter, or how this differs from runtime logs. Among many similar Godot tools, this needs more contextual explanation to guide correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There's one parameter (limit), and with 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain it. The description does not mention the limit parameter at all—the agent must infer from its name that it controls the number of entries returned. It doesn't clarify defaults, units, or constraints (e.g., max value). However, the parameter name 'limit' is somewhat self-descriptive, providing partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fetch recent editor console output through the bridge' clearly states the verb (fetch), resource (editor console output), and mechanism (through the bridge). It's specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like godot_runtime_logs, which refer to runtime logs rather than editor console output. The word 'recent' adds temporal scoping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't clarify when to use this over godot_runtime_logs (runtime logs) or godot_editor_status, which are the closest siblings. 'Recent' is ambiguous—does it return from a fixed window or a configurable amount? No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 status is returned but gives no detail about whether it's a read-only query, whether it requires the project to be running, what failure states might occur (e.g., process not started), or what the return structure looks like. For a diagnostic/status tool 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, minimal waste. It says what it does in a compact way. Though it could add more value, there is no fluff or redundancy to penalize.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 0 params and no output schema, the description should carry more contextual weight. It covers the basic purpose but omits what 'status' contains (bridge state, process alive/dead, PID, etc.), which would matter for an agent debugging a Godot project. The description is functional but leaves important interpretive gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate on. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies — no param semantics are needed and none are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Return' and resource 'runtime bridge and managed process status' give a reasonably clear purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like godot_runtime_logs, godot_runtime_perf, and godot_editor_status — an agent could confuse what 'status' means here vs those other status/reporting tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With six godot_runtime_* siblings and an editor_status tool, the agent receives no help distinguishing when to call this versus godot_editor_status or godot_runtime_perf. This is a zero-guidance description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool fetches a live runtime tree but doesn't disclose whether the runtime must be running, what happens if it isn't (error behavior), performance implications of serializing a large tree, or whether the returned tree is a full snapshot. The word 'live' implies real-time but offers no detail on freshness or latency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that perfectly front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (zero params, no output schema), so a minimal description may suffice for core behavior. However, the absence of any guidance on runtime-state prerequisites, error conditions when no game is running, or what the returned tree structure looks like leaves meaningful gaps for an agent that needs to know whether to call this first vs. checking godot_runtime_status before attempting a fetch.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, which makes parameter semantics largely moot. Schema coverage is 100% with no parameters to document. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless fetch tool since there is nothing for a description to add about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fetch the live runtime scene tree through the bridge' clearly identifies the verb (fetch) and resource (live runtime scene tree), establishing it as a read operation on the running game's scene hierarchy. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like godot_scene_get_tree or godot_project_tree, which could overlap in purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies a runtime context ('live runtime') but doesn't clarify when godot_runtime_tree should be preferred over godot_scene_get_tree, godot_project_tree, or scene_get_node. No usage exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states what the tool does (lists files) but doesn't disclose behavior like whether it returns a flat list vs. structured output, whether it sorts entries, whether it includes hidden files, or what happens with invalid paths. For a listing tool, some return-format context would be valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately short for a simple listing tool. It earns its place by adding the project-relative scoping detail, though it could add a brief note about recursive behavior without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter file listing tool, the description touches the essential behavior but leaves gaps. With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify what the recursion flag does and what the return looks like. It's minimally viable but incomplete given zero annotation and schema support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (path and recursive). The description implies 'path' is a folder path but doesn't explain the default '.', whether only folders are valid (as opposed to files), or how 'recursive' affects output. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema parameter names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List files or directories in a project-relative folder' states the verb (list), the resource (files/directories), and the scope (project-relative folder). It clearly distinguishes from sibling read tools like godot_file_read (single file) and godot_script_list (scripts only). However, it doesn't clarify the distinction from godot_project_tree or godot_project_scan which may overlap in purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage for listing project files within a folder, and the project-relative scoping gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like godot_project_tree, godot_project_scan, or godot_project_search, nor does it mention when not to use it. Some implied guidance but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say whether extraction respects comments/strings, whether it handles GDScript syntax edge cases, how symbols are returned (flat list vs grouped), or whether the operation is read-only. For a pure analysis tool this is a modest but real gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence that communicates the core operation and result. No wasted words. Could arguably list what's extracted more clearly, but as-is it's appropriately snappy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should carry more weight. The tool is simple (single param, extraction task), but the return format is unknown and there's no behavioral detail. For a moderately simple extraction tool it's adequate, though more detail on return shape would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, with a single 'path' parameter that has no description. The description implies path refers to the script file, which is reasonable, but nothing in the description adds format/type detail beyond the obvious file path meaning. With only 1 param and no schema documentation, the description adds minimal but sufficient context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Extract) and resource (script) and enumerates what's extracted: class, function, signal, and variable names. It's clear among siblings like godot_script_read and godot_script_todo_index. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish why a user would pick this over godot_script_read for symbol inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied: when you need symbol names from a script rather than full source. But there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no contrast with siblings like godot_script_list or godot_script_read. Adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavior such as: is the read limit capped by size, is binary content rejected, does it support encoding detection, what happens if file doesn't exist, is there a size threshold for text detection. For a read tool, adding a note about file size limits or error behavior would materially help.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, zero waste. Every word earns its place: the verb (read), resource (text file), and scope (project root). No redundant elaboration for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. The file-type filtering ('text file') and location scope ('project root') are the key constraints an agent needs. A note about error behavior or size limits would push this to 5, but for this simplicity level it's adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with a single undocumented 'path' parameter. The description clarifies that 'path' is relative to the project root, which is valuable scoping info the schema alone doesn't convey. However, it doesn't specify whether path needs leading slashes, if absolute paths are allowed, or format expectations. Still, with one parameter, the description provides meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: "Read a text file inside the Godot project root." It states what the tool does and where (project root). It distinguishes from siblings like godot_file_list (listing) and godot_script_read (reading scripts specifically), though not explicitly named as alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for reading text files, but doesn't state when to use this vs. godot_script_read (which likely overlaps for script files) or godot_file_list (for browsing). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 implies this is a read-only search operation but doesn't state whether it only scans .gd files, whether results are returned in a specific format, or whether it searches across all scripts in the project or only a subset. As a read operation the risk is low, but behavior is minimally disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does. Zero wasted words, perfectly front-loaded. The description earns its place entirely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple zero-parameter tool, so the description arguably needs less. However, it gives no indication of the return format (list of files? line numbers?), which comments patterns are matched (exact case sensitivity?), or scope (all scripts vs currently open). No output schema exists to fill these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition (nothing to document). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no params to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (find) and resource (TODO, FIXME, HACK comments in scripts). It distinguishes from siblings like godot_project_grep and godot_script_list by specifying the specific comment types, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives. There is no clear comparison to godot_project_grep (which could also search for these terms), no exclusions, and no description of what makes this the preferred choice for finding TODO comments specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 doesn't state whether stop gracefully terminates the process, kills it forcibly, cleans up child processes, or has side effects like losing unsaved scene edits. Given this is a destructive/state-changing operation with zero annotation coverage, the transparency is notably lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose. No wasted words or fluff. The reference to the sibling launch tool is efficiently integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a state-changing operation (stopping a running project) with no annotations and no output schema. Given the destructive nature, the description should disclose side effects, error conditions (e.g., what happens if no project is running), and confirmation requirements. It relies entirely on the sibling name for context, which is insufficient for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so with schema coverage at 100% there is nothing for the description to add semantically. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool where no param documentation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Stop a project launched by godot_run_project.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and explicitly references its paired launch tool, distinguishing it from the restart sibling. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'stop' entails (graceful shutdown vs kill), but the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The reference to 'a project launched by godot_run_project' implies the tool should be used on projects that were started via that sibling. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., godot_restart_project for restart cycles), but the linkage to godot_run_project offers implicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The description states a single action (save all) but doesn't clarify side effects: does this block until save completes, does it fail silently if editor is closed, does it report which resources were saved, or is the editor expected to be running? For an action with potential state-changing side effects on the editor's files, richer transparency is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, complete sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the verb and specifies the exact scope. There is no wasted language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), but given that it triggers a potentially destructive or consequential editor action (saving all modified resources to disk), the description is thin on behavior guarantees. There's no mention of prerequisite editor state, whether a save feedback is returned, or failure modes. For a simple state-invoking tool this is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so there's nothing for parameter semantics to add. The schema covers 100% of an empty parameter set, and the description correctly reflects there are no arguments needed. A baseline of 4 is expected for 0-param tools, and the description adequately confirms the no-argument invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'Tell the Godot editor to save all modified resources.' It clearly identifies the target (Godot editor) and the action (save all), and mentions the scope ('modified resources'). It distinguishes from siblings like save-related file operations and editor status tools, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., editor must be running), no explicit when-to-use scenario, and no exclusions. The context of 'saving all modified resources' is implied but there's no explicit direction about when an agent should call this vs. relying on autosave or other flows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. The description is simple and consistent with a read-only status check. It doesn't describe what the response looks like (boolean? text?), whether it can be called anytime, or whether it has side effects. But given the simplicity of a status check, the description is reasonably transparent — the agent can infer it's a non-destructive read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, complete sentence with zero wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does and nothing more. For a zero-parameter status check, this is ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema status check, the description is largely complete. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return format, but with no output schema available, this could be helpful. However, given the overall simplicity of the tool, the description adequately conveys its purpose and is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a zero-param tool is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Check whether the Godot editor bridge is connected.' It uses a clear verb (Check) with a specific resource (Godot editor bridge connection status). It differentiates reasonably from siblings like godot_runtime_status (which checks runtime, not editor) and godot_project_info, though it doesn't explicitly name the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of whether it should be called before other editor operations, or how it differs from godot_runtime_status which checks the runtime connection. The distinction between 'editor bridge' and runtime status is implied by the sibling names but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether the list returns full paths, whether it recurses into subdirectories, whether it includes disabled or commented scripts, or whether output is limited to project root. Basic read operation is implied but details are missing. As a read-only listing operation, the risk surface is low, which mitigates the lack of detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence that states the tool's exact purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place, specifying file extensions (.gd and .cs) and scope (project). There is nothing extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention output format (file paths relative to project root?), ordering (alphabetical?), or whether it includes nested directories. Given the sibling set includes godot_file_list and godot_file_read, knowing how script_list output could feed into script_read would be useful context but is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly scopes the operation to .gd and .cs files in the project, which is the essential information an agent needs. With no params, the description's mention of file types serves as the functional config guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) + resource (all .gd and .cs scripts) and the project scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like godot_scene_list by specifying script file types. Not a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with godot_file_list, which could also list .gd/.cs files in the project, so some potential ambiguity remains regarding which tool is authoritative for the file listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it's for discovering scripts in the Godot project. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this vs godot_file_list (which lists files generally) or godot_scene_list. There's no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The context is reasonably clear but lacks exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses that it lists .tscn scene files project-wide, which conveys it's likely a read-only operation, but doesn't state whether it scans recursively, whether results are sorted, or what happens on empty/error conditions. It's a simple listing tool so minimal behavior disclosure may be acceptable, but the exact traversal scope (recursive vs top-level) is unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without any waste. Every word earns its place. Perfectly front-loaded with the verb 'List' immediately establishing the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is adequately complete. It identifies the resource type (.tscn), scope (project), and action (list). Given the simplicity of the tool, this level of detail is sufficient, though it could mention return format or sorting behavior for extra clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters (100% schema coverage with no params), so per the rubric a baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately confirms the parameter-free nature by not referencing any inputs. There's nothing more the description could add about parameters since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (.tscn scene files) with a clear scope ('in the project'). It distinguishes this from file listing tools (godot_file_list), script listings (godot_script_list), and the project tree (godot_project_tree). It's clear but doesn't elaborate on output format or differentiate explicitly from siblings like godot_scene_get_node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context via the tool name and description (listing scene files), but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With 34 sibling tools including similar listing tools (godot_file_list, godot_script_list, godot_project_tree), explicit differentiation would help, though the .tscn scope is reasonably self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a read-only operation ('Read project.godot and summarize'), implying no mutation. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the file is missing, whether it could fail on unparsed content, or the depth of the 'features' summarization. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the action (read), resource (project.godot), and output (summary of name/version/features). No filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it doesn't specify whether 'features' refers to plugin/autoload config, input mappings, or other project.godot sections, which could lead to ambiguous expectations. For a simple metadata tool this is acceptable, but a bit more return-shape clarity would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents everything. Per the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4. The description further clarifies what output is expected (project name, version, features), which adds behavioral meaning to the tool's purpose beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb+resource: 'Read project.godot and summarize the project name, version and features.' It precisely identifies what is read (the project.godot file), what is produced (a summary of name/version/features), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_project_tree, godot_project_scan, and godot_project_search which operate on different aspects of the project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you need project-level metadata/identity info), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that godot_project_tree is for hierarchy, godot_project_scan for file details, or godot_project_grep for searching content. The context is inferable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![GodotMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Noa3/GodotMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Noa3/GodotMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![GodotMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Noa3/GodotMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Noa3/GodotMCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Noa3/GodotMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server