Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cavi Godot MCP

Cavi Godot MCP

by cavi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

godot_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether each Godot review dependency is configured without launching the project, so you can verify setup before rendering or inspection.

Instructions

Report whether each review dependency is configured without launching it.

Tool call template

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": "godot_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The one genuine addition is "without launching it", clarifying that the check has no process-side effects — valuable but thin for a tool whose main behavior (what counts as "configured") remains unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is efficient but slightly compressed — "each review dependency" and "configured" carry a lot of unexplained meaning in one clause.

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?

An output schema exists and no parameters are needed, so the description only has to say what is reported, which it does. The remaining gap is the absence of any definition of a "review dependency" or of what a non-configured result means for the agent's next step.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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?

"Report whether each review dependency is configured" gives a specific verb and resource, and "without launching it" separates it from the review_prepare/capture siblings that presumably launch dependencies. The concept of a "review dependency" stays undefined, so an agent new to this namespace must infer what objects are checked.

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 phrase "without launching it" implies a pre-flight/configuration check use case rather than doing review work, which is useful implied guidance. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when-not condition is stated, so the routing to godot_review_prepare or godot_review_inspect is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools