Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP - Full Control

Godot MCP - Full Control

by cxb2523
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

game_create_timer

Create and configure a Godot Timer node with wait time, one-shot, autostart, and parent path settings for timed gameplay events.

Instructions

Create a Timer node with configuration

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": "game_create_timer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional timer node name
oneShotNoOne-shot mode. Default: false
waitTimeNoTimer duration in seconds. Default: 1.0
autostartNoAuto-start the timer. Default: false
parentPathNoParent node path. Default: "/root"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'Create a Timer node.' It does not disclose that this is a scene-tree mutation (adding a node under parentPath), whether it replaces an existing node with the same name, whether the created timer is active immediately, or what the tool returns on success. For a write operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

The description is a single short sentence that leads with the action and object, making it easy to scan. The only mild waste is 'with configuration,' which is largely implied by the existence of parameters, but the overall brevity is appropriate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is too thin. It fails to mention the side effect (adding the node to the scene tree), the target under parentPath, or what happens after creation. An agent cannot fully infer the tool's impact on the scene without additional investigation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (name, oneShot, waitTime, autostart, parentPath) is already documented with its meaning and default in the input schema. The description's 'with configuration' adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but per the baseline rule for high coverage, the schema carries the semantic load adequately.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a concrete resource ('Timer node'), which is sufficient to identify the tool's function and distinguish it from the many sibling tools that operate on other node types (e.g., game_create_animation, game_spawn_node). The phrase 'with configuration' is vague but the schema names the configurable properties. It stops short of 5 because it does not clarify where the node is created or how it differs from generic scene-creation siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_spawn_node, game_instantiate_scene, or add_node, all of which could plausibly create a Timer node. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues (e.g., 'use when adding a scene-tree timer') to help an agent select between siblings.

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