godot-mcp-extended

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

dotnet_test

Run .NET tests for a Godot 4.x project and return structured results, with optional filter, configuration, and diagnostic limits.

Instructions

Run dotnet test for a Godot 4.x .NET project and return structured results

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>"
    },
    "name": "dotnet_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filter`	No	Optional: test filter expression passed to --filter
`projectPath`	Yes	Path to the Godot project directory
`configuration`	No	Optional: MSBuild configuration, Debug or Release (defaults to Release)
`maxDiagnostics`	No	Optional: maximum diagnostics to return (defaults to 200)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says results are structured; it omits whether the command is long-running, has side effects, requires a built project, or how failures are surfaced. For an execution tool this is a substantial gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target lead. It is efficient, though borderline terse for a tool with no annotations or output schema to back it up.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description should carry behavioral and output context. It states only that 'structured results' are returned without describing them or the execution semantics, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 all four parameters (filter, projectPath, configuration, maxDiagnostics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (run), resource (dotnet test), and target environment (Godot 4.x .NET project), plus mentions structured results. It does not distinguish itself from the close siblings dotnet_build or run_tests, so the agent must infer which test runner applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like run_tests and dotnet_build present, the description gives no condition for choosing dotnet_test over them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.