Validate a GDScript file with Godot's --check-only mode, returning structured parse errors so AI agents can detect and fix script issues in a project.
Parse a GDScript file with Godot --check-only and return structured errors
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Script path relative to project | |
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that checking is non-destructive (--check-only) and that errors are returned structurally, but omits whether a Godot process is spawned, what happens if Godot is unavailable or the path is invalid, and how errors are shaped.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The mechanism and return type are packed into one clause each, and nothing could be cut without losing meaning.
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?
For a two-parameter validation tool the description is close to adequate, but with no output schema in place it should describe the structure of the returned errors and the failure mode on a bad projectPath. Those gaps leave an agent unsure what a successful versus failed response looks like.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so filePath and projectPath are already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no format, default, or path-resolution detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (parse/check), a specific resource (a GDScript file), and the exact mechanism (Godot --check-only) plus the output (structured errors). This clearly separates it from sibling create_script and attach_script, which write/modify scripts rather than validate them.
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?
The description implies the usage context (validate a script before running it), but never says when to choose this over alternatives such as run_tests or export_check, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.