Retrieve visible UI elements from a running Godot game to inspect on-screen controls and menus for debugging or automation.
Get visible UI elements from the running game
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_get_ui"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and a one-line 'get' sentence only signals a read operation. It does not define what 'visible' excludes (hidden, offscreen, or non-CanvasItem elements), what the return value looks like, or edge behaviors such as erroring when no game is running.
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 nine words with zero filler; the verb and object are front-loaded and every word earns its place. It is a model of efficient phrasing, though the thinness is penalized in other dimensions.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for return-shape information, but it never says what 'UI elements' means (node paths, control references, bounding rects, text values) or how the results are organized. It also does not clarify how this differs from the game_ui_* family or scene-tree queries, and it says nothing about failure states or prerequisites.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to add; per the rubric, this case gets a baseline of 4.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('visible UI elements') scoped to the running game, and the word 'visible' adds useful specificity beyond a generic 'get UI' phrasing. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from partially overlapping siblings such as game_get_scene_tree, game_ui_tree, or game_get_nodes_in_group, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; among the ~150 siblings, several overlap heavily (game_get_scene_tree, game_ui_tree, game_find_nodes_by_class, game_get_nodes_in_group). There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion to help an agent select it correctly, so the agent must guess which query tool fits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.