Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bismuth_MCP_Godot

Bismuth_MCP_Godot

by QkartBismuth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Проверка скриптов

godot_script_check
Destructive

Validates GDScript syntax and compilation, optionally booting the project headless to catch initialization errors. Returns file-and-line error lists, helping verify scripts after bulk edits.

Instructions

Проверяет синтаксис и компиляцию .gd файлов (godot --check-only) и/или загружает проект в headless-режиме, чтобы поймать ошибки времени выполнения при инициализации. Возвращает список ошибок с файлами и строками. Используйте после массового редактирования скриптов.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "godot_script_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirNoКаталог для сканирования, по умолчанию res://
limitNo
pathsNoКонкретные .gd файлы; по умолчанию — все скрипты проекта
boot_checkNoДополнительно загрузить проект в headless и собрать ошибки инициализации
boot_framesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description partially explains why (headless project load executes initialization code), which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it never explicitly warns about side effects, permissions, or that boot_check may run arbitrary project code. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose+mechanism first, return value second, usage trigger last. Front-loaded and waste-free, though fairly dense.

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?

With no output schema and 5 optional params at 60% coverage, the description does cover the return shape and the primary mode switch. It leaves secondary params (limit, boot_frames, dir defaults) and the destructive side-effect unpitched, so it is good but not airtight.

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 60%; the description explains the two operating modes (check-only vs headless boot) which maps to boot_check, but dir, limit, and boot_frames are left entirely to the schema. It neither repeats nor compensates fully for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (checks syntax/compilation) and resource (.gd files), and adds the mechanism (godot --check-only, headless project load). It also defines the output (error list with files and lines), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like godot_script or godot_run.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete trigger condition: 'Используйте после массового редактирования скриптов' (use after mass script edits). That is clear context, but there is no when-not guidance and no reference to alternative tools such as godot_lsp for lighter checks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools