godot-omni

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

editor_manage

Manage Godot editor operations: set selection, read performance metrics, clear logs, quit, and evaluate GDScript in editor or running game.

Instructions

Editor selection, performance monitors, quit, log clearing, game eval.

Resource forms (prefer for active-session reads): godot://editor/state, godot://selection/current, godot://performance

Ops: • state() Editor version, project name, current scene, readiness, play state. • selection_get() Currently selected node paths in the editor. • selection_set(paths) Replace the selection with the given list of scene paths. • monitors_get(monitors=None) Performance singleton values (FPS, memory, draw calls, etc.). Pass a list of monitor names to filter; None returns everything. • quit() Gracefully quit the Godot editor on next frame. • logs_clear(clear_debugger_errors=False) Clear the MCP log buffer. Returns cleared_count. Pass clear_debugger_errors=True to also clear the Debugger dock's visible Errors-tab rows (user-facing UI, so opt-in only); the response then includes debugger_errors_cleared. • eval(code, mode="auto", inputs={}) Execute arbitrary GDScript directly in the Godot Editor process with full permissions. • execute_script(code="", path="", inputs={}) Execute a script file or inline GDScript code in the Godot Editor process. • game_eval(code) Execute GDScript in the running game with return values. Uses 'await' so user code can await internally. Errors return fast and actionable: EVAL_COMPILE_ERROR for a syntax/parse error, EVAL_RUNTIME_ERROR (with the real message + line) for a runtime error; EVAL_GAME_NOT_READY if the game can't service evals — still launching (retry once it's up), the _mcp_game_helper autoload is missing/disabled, its main loop is not advancing (focus the game), or its debugger session closed; EVAL_HUNG for a live game's genuine infinite loop / never-firing await; EVAL_RESULT_TOO_LARGE if the returned value serializes past the debugger channel's capacity (return a smaller slice).

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`op`	Yes
`params`	No
`session_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv5.0.28Sep 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / op / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "game_eval",
-  "logs_clear",
-  "monitors_get",
-  "quit",
-  "selection_get",
-  "selection_set",
-  "state"
-]New value: +[
+  "eval",
+  "execute_script",
+  "game_eval",
+  "logs_clear",
+  "monitors_get",
+  "quit",
+  "selection_get",
+  "selection_set",
+  "state"
+]

First observedv4.1.0Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses side effects (quit() 'Gracefully quit the Godot editor on next frame'), permission implications (eval 'Execute arbitrary GDScript directly... with full permissions'), and error semantics for game_eval (detailed EVAL_* codes with conditions). The canonical call shape is also explained. This is exemplary transparency.

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 long but well-organized: a summary line, a resource-forms note, then a bulleted list of ops with precise details. It is front-loaded with the summary and each line serves a purpose. Slight redundancy in the canonical call shape could be trimmed, but overall structure is effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with nine operations, the description covers everything an agent needs: parameter formats, return values (e.g., logs_clear returns cleared_count), error codes with actionable resolutions, and the call shape. It also notes output schema exists, so return structure is not missing. No gaps are apparent for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only provides op as an enum and params as a free-form object, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining each operation's parameters (e.g., monitors_get with optional list, logs_clear with clear_debugger_errors, eval with code/mode/inputs). This adds meaning far beyond the schema, making it essential for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a concise summary of the tool's scope: 'Editor selection, performance monitors, quit, log clearing, game eval.' It then enumerates specific operations, making it clear that this is a multi-purpose editor management tool. It does not present a single verb+resource, but the list of ops is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like editor_state and logs_read by covering a broader set of editor actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides internal guidance: it suggests preferring resource forms (godot://editor/state, etc.) for active-session reads, and explains when to use the opt-in flag for logs_clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast editor_manage with sibling tools or state conditions for choosing this tool over others. It gives usage context for specific ops but not cross-tool comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server