Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

analyze_signal_flow

Analyze signal flow between Godot nodes to map communication patterns and debug event propagation issues.

Instructions

Analyze signal graph in project. (Compatibility tool)

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": "analyze_signal_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutMsNo
autoConnectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to explain what 'analyze' entails (return format, scope), what risks or side effects exist, or what 'compatibility' refers to. Critically, it does not clarify whether the autoConnect parameter performs writes or is purely analytical.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Extremely brief (two short statements), which avoids verbosity, but the '(Compatibility tool)' tag is cryptically placed and the front-loaded sentence provides minimal value. Appropriate length for the content provided, though content is insufficient.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps. It does not explain the return value, the implications of additionalProperties: true, or the specific Godot engine context required to interpret 'signal graph' correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both timeoutMs and autoConnect. The description fails to compensate by explaining these parameters—particularly autoConnect, which suggests mutating behavior that contradicts the 'analyze' verb, and timeoutMs, which implies potential long-running or blocking operations.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States it analyzes a 'signal graph in project' which conveys the general domain (Godot signals), but 'analyze' is vague regarding what kind of analysis is performed (static, dynamic, validation?). Fails to distinguish from siblings like find_signal_connections or get_signals.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling signal-related tools (find_signal_connections, get_signals, connect_signal). The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at a specific use case but is too cryptic to be actionable.

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