godot-omni

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

script_manage

Manage Godot GDScript files: read, detach, outline symbols, validate syntax, and delete scripts with compiler diagnostics.

Instructions

Script (.gd) reading, detachment, and outline.

Resource form: godot://script/{path} — prefer for active-session reads.

Ops: • read(path) Read full source, line count, file size. • detach(path) Remove the currently attached script from a node. Undoable. • find_symbols(path) Outline a .gd — class_name, extends, functions, signals, @export vars. • validate(path="", content="") Validate a GDScript file or source string and return compiler diagnostics. • delete(path) Delete a script file and its .uid sidecar from the project.

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 changedv5.0.9Sep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / op / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "detach",
-  "find_symbols",
-  "read"
-]New value: +[
+  "delete",
+  "detach",
+  "find_symbols",
+  "read",
+  "validate"
+]

First observedv4.1.0Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important side effects: detach is undoable, delete removes both the file and its .uid sidecar, read returns full source plus line count and file size, and validate returns compiler diagnostics. It does not cover permissions or irreversible-change warnings beyond delete, but the provided behavioral detail is strong.

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?

The description is well structured: a short scope header, a resource-form tip, a controlled bullet list of operations with their parameters and return summaries, and a compact call-shape note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 multi-operation tool with no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, this is substantially complete: all operations, parameter shapes, defaults, call convention, and key output/side effects are covered. The main gap is that session_id semantics are not explained, and there is no explicit statement about whether detach or delete require an active session beyond the read-preference note.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document parameters. It does: each operation lists its parameter names, validate provides defaults for both path and content, and the canonical call shape explains how op and params relate. The compatibility alias for flat parameters and the reminder that op and session_id stay top-level add crucial semantic clarity beyond the sparse schema.

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 clearly names the resource type (.gd scripts) and enumerates five distinct operations with specific verbs: read, detach, find_symbols, validate, delete. It is easy to tell what the tool does, though the opening summary omits validate and delete, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like script_patch or script_attach.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation list and the note that the godot://script resource form is preferred for active-session reads. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over script_create, script_patch, script_attach, or other script-related siblings, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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