godot-mcp-extended

by daremau

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

dump_scene

Parse a Godot .tscn scene file statically to return its node tree and properties without running Godot.

Instructions

Parse a .tscn scene file statically (no Godot run) and return its node tree with properties

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>",
      "scenePath": "<scenePath>"
    },
    "name": "dump_scene"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scenePath`	Yes	Scene file path relative to project (e.g. main.tscn)
`projectPath`	Yes	Path to the Godot project directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the parse is static and requires no Godot run, implying a safe read. However, it omits error behavior (missing/invalid file), whether it is strictly read-only, and any handling of engine-version-specific formats.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and the key constraint (static, no Godot run) before the return value. Appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool.

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 two-param static-read tool with fully documented schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, key constraint, and return shape. Minor gaps (error cases, permission requirements) remain but are not critical given 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% — both parameters are fully documented in the schema with examples — so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Parse a .tscn scene file') plus what it returns ('node tree with properties'). The parenthetical 'statically (no Godot run)' usefully distinguishes it from execution siblings like run_project and launch_editor, though it doesn't name a specific sibling it competes with.

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?

Usage is implied — read a scene's structure without launching Godot — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer context but must guess why it would pick this over instance_scene or list_assets.

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