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

Godot MCP - Full Control

by cxb2523
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

write_file

Create or overwrite a text file in a Godot project by specifying the project path, relative file path, and content.

Instructions

Create or overwrite a text file in a Godot project

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": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesFile content to write
filePathYesFile path relative to project root
projectPathYesGodot project path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the destructive overwrite behavior, which is important. However, it does not mention whether parent directories are created, path validation behavior, encoding, or error conditions.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and scopes it precisely to a Godot project. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 three-parameter file write tool with fully described parameters, the description is largely complete. It discloses the key destructive behavior (overwrite), and no output schema exists to explain return values. Missing usage alternatives are a minor gap relative to the tool's simplicity.

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%, with each parameter having a basic description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond those schema fields, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Create or overwrite') and resource ('a text file in a Godot project'), distinguishing it from file-related siblings like read_file and delete_file. It is concrete and not a tautology.

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 description implies use for writing text files in a Godot project, but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as create_script, create_resource, or save_scene. Usage context is present but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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