Search Godot engine methods by name substring, optionally scoped to a class (including inherited). Retrieved methods can be invoked directly via call_method.
Search methods by name substring, optionally restricted to a class (incl. inherited). Any result is invokable via call_method.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | ||
| class | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.12.1v1.10.1v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: results are invokable via call_method, and the optional class restriction includes inherited members. This extra information is valuable and does not contradict the annotations.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description sufficiently covers purpose, key parameters, and a workflow hint. It explains the optional class restriction and the invokability of results, making the tool's behavior clear enough for an agent to use correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining 'query' as a name substring and 'class' as an optional restriction including inherited. 'max' is not described, but its purpose is intuitive from its name and common usage. The description adds meaning for the two core parameters, though not exhaustive.
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 the tool's function: 'Search methods by name substring' and notes an optional class restriction. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_classes (which searches classes) and call_method (which invokes methods) by focusing on method name search.
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 implicitly indicates usage: find methods by name to later call them, reinforced by 'Any result is invokable via call_method.' While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, it provides a clear workflow context. No exclusion criteria are given, but the primary use case is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.