Godot API Docs Manager

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

The description mentions that dump_api writes a cache under .godot_mcp/api, revealing a side effect. However, it does not discuss other behavioral aspects (e.g., whether search_classes or class_info require network calls or have rate limits). Annotations only provide idempotentHint:false, which is consistent but not elaborated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is two sentences, front-loading the main purpose without any fluff. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite an output schema existing, the description does not explain the different actions (dump_api, search_classes, etc.) in sufficient detail for an agent to choose correctly. With 9 parameters and 4 action enums, more context about each action's purpose and typical use cases would be necessary for complete guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The mention of caching relates to the tool's behavior, not parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool dumps/searches Godot API docs including classes, methods, properties, and command-line help. It distinguishes from siblings (godot_asset, godot_project, etc.) by focusing solely on API documentation. However, it could be more specific about the search capabilities.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling tools. A 'when-not' or alternative mentioning would improve this.

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