Skip to main content
Glama
bebabinlarsson-blip

godot-omni

by bebabinlarsson-blip
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

autoload_manage

Manage Godot autoloads: list, add, remove, or scaffold a GameManager singleton with score, lives, and scene transitions.

Instructions

Autoload (global singleton) management. Autoloads are scripts or scenes loaded automatically at project start, accessible globally by name when singleton=True. Persisted to project.godot.

Ops: • list() List autoloads with name, path, and singleton flag. • add(name, path, singleton=True) Register an autoload (script or PackedScene) by res:// path. • remove(name) Unregister an autoload by name. The underlying file is not deleted. • scaffold_game_manager(name="GameManager", script_path="res://scripts/game_manager.gd", max_lives=3) Scaffold and register a production-ready GameManager singleton with score, lives, level tracking, typed signals, and scene transition methods.

Canonical call shape: {"op": "<verb>", "params": {...}}. Flat op parameters are accepted as a compatibility alias when the client transmits them; op and session_id remain top-level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opYes
paramsNo
session_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv5.0.28
    • changedInput schema / properties / op / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "add",
-  "list",
-  "remove"
-]New value: +[
+  "add",
+  "list",
+  "remove",
+  "scaffold_game_manager"
+]
  2. First observedv4.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that autoloads are persisted to project.godot, that remove does not delete the underlying file, and that scaffold_game_manager creates a production-ready singleton. It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing files or requiring a project reload, but the disclosed persistence and non-deletion details are meaningful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a brief intro, a bulleted op list, and a canonical call shape note. It is slightly long but every section earns its place; the op list is essential and the call-shape note prevents invocation errors.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key behaviors, parameters, and persistence side effects. It could add explicit notes on error cases or whether add overwrites an existing autoload, but the current content is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by documenting each op's parameters (name, path, singleton, script_path, max_lives) and their meanings. It does not provide full type details for every parameter, but the op-by-op breakdown gives an agent enough to construct valid calls.

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 clearly states that this tool manages Godot autoloads (global singletons), and enumerates the four operations (list, add, remove, scaffold_game_manager) with their specific effects. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling *_manage tools by naming its exact resource (autoloads) and the canonical call shape.

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 explains what autoloads are and when this tool is relevant, and the op list implicitly tells the agent which operation to choose. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g., project_manage or script_manage) over this one, but the resource-specific scope and op names provide clear 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