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

Godot MCP - Full Control

by cxb2523
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

game_wait

Wait for a specified number of render or physics frames in a running Godot game to synchronize runtime actions and inspect frame-based behavior.

Instructions

Wait N frames in the running game

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_wait"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
framesNoNumber of frames to wait. Default: 1
frameTypeNoFrame to wait on: "physics" (fixed 60Hz ticks) or "render". Default: render

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the wait blocks execution, affects game performance, or returns anything. The description is too minimal.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely concise: a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the essential action and resource.

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?

For a simple waiting tool, the description covers the core action. However, it could mention that it pauses execution for game loop synchronization, but given the tool's simplicity and parameter details, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100% and adequately describes both parameters (frames and frameType). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool waits N frames in the running game. It uses a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('frames'), and it is distinct from sibling tools (e.g., no other wait tool exists).

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 tool versus alternatives like game_await_signal or game_create_timer. The description simply states what it does without context or exclusions.

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