Check the status and capabilities of the GDScript provider to verify language support in the Godot editor.
Returns GDScript provider status and capabilities.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "gd_script_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the return value without disclosing any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions).
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 a single sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word is necessary, and no unnecessary details are included.
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 lack of an output schema and low complexity, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not elaborate on what specific statuses or capabilities are returned, which could help an agent understand the tool's output without prior context.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the tool's purpose (returning status/capabilities), which the empty schema cannot convey. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 specifies that the tool returns the GDScript provider's status and capabilities. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('GDScript provider status and capabilities'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gd_lsp_connect' or 'script_info'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it is for checking provider status, but no exclusions or context for when not to use it are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.