Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

bake_navigation_mesh

Bake navigation meshes in Godot to generate AI pathfinding data from scene geometry. Creates walkable area maps for automated character navigation and obstacle avoidance.

Instructions

Bake navigation mesh. (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": "bake_navigation_mesh"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutMsNo
autoConnectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to mention that this is likely a long-running operation (evidenced by the timeoutMs parameter), whether it modifies scene files, or what 'compatibility' refers to. Does not explain side effects.

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 at four words, but underspecified given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations. The '(Compatibility tool)' fragment adds confusion without sufficient context to earn its place.

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?

Navigation mesh baking is a complex, potentially expensive operation with two undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description provides insufficient context for an agent to understand failure modes, return values, or parameter semantics.

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 compensates with zero information. The critical timeoutMs parameter (suggesting potential hangs) and autoConnect parameter are completely undocumented in the description.

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?

The description states the basic operation ('Bake navigation mesh') but offers no differentiation from sibling navigation tools like setup_navigation_region or get_navigation_info. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is ambiguous and doesn't clarify scope or purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to bake vs. setup a region). The 'compatibility tool' note implies legacy usage but fails to specify prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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