Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

capture_frames

Capture consecutive frames from Godot game sessions to enable visual debugging, scene analysis, and automated gameplay testing.

Instructions

Capture multiple game frames. (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": "capture_frames"
  }
}

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain side effects (where frames are stored, memory impact, format), blocking behavior, or what 'Compatibility tool' signifies. The only behavioral hint is 'multiple,' suggesting a sequence rather than a single image.

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 seven words. While efficiently worded without filler, it is underspecified rather than elegantly concise. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is uninformative and consumes space without adding value.

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 a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description should easily achieve completeness, yet it fails to explain the capture mechanism, return value, or frame destination. The 'compatibility' aspect remains a mystery, leaving critical gaps for an agent attempting to use this tool.

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 provides zero compensation. It does not mention 'timeoutMs' (controlling capture duration) or 'autoConnect' (handling game connection), leaving both parameters completely undocumented beyond their property names.

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 the basic action (Capture) and target (multiple game frames), which distinguishes it slightly from single-frame screenshot tools. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained, and the description fails to clarify how this differs from the sibling 'start_recording' tool or what happens to the captured frames.

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 alternatives like 'get_game_screenshot' or 'start_recording'. Does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an active game connection (implied by 'autoConnect' parameter but not explained) or when the capture operation terminates.

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