Persist Godot project settings by assigning a value to a property path, saving changes directly to project.godot.
Set a ProjectSettings value and persist project.godot. The property path goes in 'setting' ('name' is also accepted); e.g. set application/run/main_scene to res://main.tscn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| setting | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.12.1v1.10.0v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds that the change persists to project.godot, which is key context beyond the annotations. It also clarifies parameter aliases (setting/name). No contradiction.
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 sentences: the first states the action and persistence, the second explains parameter usage with an example. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes.
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?
The tool is simple, and the description covers its purpose and main parameter. However, the input schema lists only 'value' as required, yet the description implies a path must be provided without explicitly stating that 'setting' or 'name' is necessary. This could lead the agent to invoke the tool without the required path. There is no output schema, so return behavior is not described.
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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the property path goes in 'setting' and that 'name' is accepted, with an example mapping path to value. It does not explicitly describe the 'value' parameter, but the example implies its role. This is meaningful guidance.
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: 'Set a ProjectSettings value and persist project.godot.' It also provides a concrete example with a property path. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_setting (read) and set_property (generic setter).
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 usage for setting persistent project settings, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as set_property or get_project_setting. There is no 'when not to use' guidance. The example helps, but selection criteria are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.