Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

assert_screen_text

Check text visibility on Godot game screens to validate UI elements and dialogue during automated testing. Configures timeout limits and auto-connects to running instances.

Instructions

Assert screen text is visible. (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": "assert_screen_text"
  }
}

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?

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether 'assert' means throwing an exception versus returning a boolean, what happens on timeout (given the timeoutMs parameter), or the significance of the 'Compatibility tool' designation (e.g., deprecated vs. legacy protocol).

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?

The description is appropriately brief (two short sentences), but the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment wastes space without providing actionable information. The main clause is front-loaded effectively, though extreme brevity undermines utility given the schema complexity.

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?

For an assertion tool with polling behavior (implied by timeoutMs) and flexible inputs (additionalProperties: true), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of failure modes, return values, text matching semantics (substring vs exact), and why additional properties are accepted.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description completely fails to compensate. It does not mention the existence of the timeoutMs or autoConnect parameters, nor does it hint at what additional properties (via additionalProperties: true) are expected—most critically, the text string to search for.

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?

The description clearly states the core action ('Assert') and target ('screen text is visible'), distinguishing it from sibling assertion tools like assert_node_state. However, the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds confusion without explanation, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_ui_elements or click_button_by_text, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active game instance or screenshot context.

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