Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
godot-mcp

godot-mcp

by WindSeries83
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

godot_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve current project information from the Godot editor to inspect project settings and metadata.

Instructions

Get project info from the Godot editor (shorthand for godot_call method=get_project_info).

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_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it delegates to godot_call with method=get_project_info, which is mildly useful, but it does not describe what 'project info' contains or how the result is returned. With annotations covering the main behavior, 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and the delegation relationship with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter 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 zero-parameter, read-only info retrieval tool, the description provides enough to understand its role and invocation path. The lack of an output schema and any detail about the structure of 'project info' is a minor gap, but not critical for such a simple shorthand wrapper.

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 is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific clutter.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project info from the Godot editor'), and explicitly identifies itself as a shorthand for godot_call method=get_project_info, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does without inspecting schemas.

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 clarifies that this tool is a shorthand for a specific godot_call invocation, implying it should be used when the agent wants project info without crafting a full method call. It does not explicitly describe when to prefer godot_call or other siblings, but the convenience-wrapper relationship gives sufficient routing context.

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