Manage Godot autoloads: list, add, or remove them by providing the project path, action, and required name/path details.
Add, remove, or list autoloads in a Godot project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Autoload name (required for add/remove) | |
| path | No | Script/scene path (required for add, e.g. "res://globals.gd") | |
| action | Yes | "list", "add", or "remove" | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that 'add' and 'remove' likely modify the project's project.godot file, whether changes are persistent, require a reload, or can be undone. Listing behavior is also not described (e.g., return format).
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, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the core actions without filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly scannable for an agent.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and multiple operation modes with different parameter requirements (name/path only for add/remove), the description is too thin. It does not explain return values, side effects, what happens when removing a nonexistent autoload, or how the 'list' action reports results.
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 four parameters and the action values. The description adds only a high-level summary and does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb set ('Add, remove, or list') and a clear resource ('autoloads in a Godot project'). This immediately distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, which target different resources like scenes, projects, or gameplay state.
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 the tool is for managing autoloads, and the action parameter ('list', 'add', 'remove') gives clear operational context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, list prerequisites, or mention that it modifies project configuration files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.