Send gamepad button or axis input events to the Godot engine to simulate controller actions, enabling automated testing and input control.
Send gamepad button or axis input event
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | "button" or "axis" | |
| index | Yes | Button or axis index | |
| value | Yes | Value: 0/1 for buttons, -1.0 to 1.0 for axes | |
| device | No | Gamepad device index. Default: 0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Send gamepad button or axis input event' and does not explain whether this injects an artificial engine event, requires a connected gamepad, has side effects on the running game, or returns any confirmation.
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 a single, compact sentence that contains the essential verb and resource without any filler. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
The schema fully covers the four parameters, and the tool is a simple single-purpose event sender, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves open questions about return values, prerequisites, and whether the event is simulated at engine level. It is minimally adequate but not complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter meanings: type values, index purpose, value ranges, and the optional device index. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides.
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 a specific verb ('Send'), a resource ('gamepad button or axis input event'), and distinguishes this tool from sibling input tools like game_click, game_key_press, game_mouse_move, and game_touch. An agent can immediately identify that this is for gamepad-specific input.
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?
The description implies usage for gamepad input events through the phrase 'gamepad button or axis input event', but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No routing to sibling tools like game_key_press or game_touch is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.