Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
godot-mcp

godot-mcp

by WindSeries83
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

godot_execute

Destructive

Run GDScript code directly inside the Godot editor to automate tasks, test logic, or manipulate the scene in real time.

Instructions

Execute GDScript code in the Godot editor (shorthand for godot_call method=execute_editor_script).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "godot_execute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesGDScript code to execute in the editor

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is explicit. The description itself adds no warning about arbitrary code side effects or a caution to use carefully; it only adds the shorthand routing detail, so it contributes limited behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 clean, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action and the parenthetical adds a useful routing note without filler. 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?

For an arbitrary-code execution tool there is no output schema and no mention of return values, failures, or side-effect warnings beyond the annotation. It is sufficient to select and invoke, but for an execution primitive it leaves result/error behavior unspecified.

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%; the code parameter already has a full description. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so it does not need to compensate and the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute GDScript code in the Godot editor'. It also clarifies that this is a shorthand wrapper for godot_call method=execute_editor_script, which distinguishes it from the other godot_* siblings.

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 gives a clear usage context: this tool is the shorthand form for godot_call with method=execute_editor_script. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or list alternatives beyond godot_call, so it misses a small amount of routing guidance.

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