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

Godot MCP - Full Control

by cxb2523
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

game_shape_2d

Manipulate Line2D and Polygon2D node points in Godot by adding, setting, clearing, or retrieving coordinate arrays for custom 2D shapes.

Instructions

Line2D/Polygon2D point manipulation

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "nodePath": "<nodePath>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "game_shape_2d"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colorNoColor {r,g,b,a}
pointNoSingle point {x,y}
widthNoLine width
actionYesAction: add_point, set_points, clear, get_points
pointsNoArray of points [{x,y},...]
nodePathYesPath to Line2D/Polygon2D node

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not whether mutations affect the live game, whether they are undoable, whether get_points is read-only while add_point/clear mutate, or what the return value is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — a five-word fragment where a sentence of scope and behavior was needed.

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 six-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves nearly everything — action semantics, live-vs-scene target, return shape — to be inferred from param names alone.

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 the schema already documents nodePath, action, point, points, color and width. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which lands at the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Line2D/Polygon2D point manipulation" names the resource types but gives only a vague verb phrase; it also omits that color and width can be set, and it does not distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as game_path_2d or game_canvas_draw.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (game_path_2d, game_canvas_draw, game_set_property on a Line2D node), and no prerequisites such as whether the game must be running or the node selected.

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