Skip to main content
Glama
Tann2019

Godot Forge

by Tann2019
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Simulate input

input

Simulate keyboard, gamepad, mouse, and text events in a running Godot game; record and replay play sessions to automate testing and reproduce player behavior.

Instructions

Play the running game: press input actions, keys, gamepad buttons, click/drag at viewport coordinates or directly on a node (UI buttons), type text. Steps run in order with real timing. Also record the user's play session and replay it.

Actions:

  • send: {steps: [...]} where each step is one of: {action:'jump', hold?:0.2} | {action, pressed:true/false} | {key:'Space'|'Ctrl+S', hold?} | {click:[x,y], button?, double?, space?:'viewport'|'screenshot'} | {click_node:'UI/StartButton'} | {mouse_move:[x,y]} | {drag:[[x1,y1],[x2,y2]], seconds?} | {joy:'a'} | {axis:'left_x', value:-1, hold?} | {text:'hello'} | {wait:0.5} | {release_all:true}

  • record: {mode: 'start'|'stop', include_mouse_motion?} capture real input; 'stop' returns events with timestamps.

  • replay: {events, speed?=1} replay recorded events.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo'start' or 'stop' for record.
speedNoReplay speed multiplier.
stepsNoInput steps, executed in order.
actionYesWhat to do. See the tool description for each action's parameters.
eventsNoEvents from record.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: steps run in order with real timing, record captures real input, and stop returns events with timestamps. It stops short of describing failure modes or game-state side effects, but is solid for this tool type.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then uses a bulleted breakdown for actions and step formats. Despite its length, every sentence earns its place by documenting the complex input vocabulary required to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with five parameters, nested step objects, and no output schema, the description is complete: it defines all three actions, enumerates every step variant, and even notes that record returns timestamped events. Annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, yet the description substantially enriches parameter meaning. It spells out every step type in the send action (jump, key, click, drag, joy, axis, text, wait, release_all), and explains record mode and replay speed, far exceeding the terse schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (play/simulate input) and resource (running game), and enumerates concrete capabilities (press keys, gamepad buttons, click/drag, type text) that distinguish it from all siblings. An agent can immediately tell this tool is for injecting input into a game session.

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?

The description clearly establishes the context: use this to play or record/replay input in a running game. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it, but the action breakdown (send/record/replay) effectively guides usage. Sibling 'ui' or 'game' might overlap, yet no exclusion is given.

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