Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

create_animation_tree

Create AnimationTree nodes in Godot to manage animation state machines and blend character movements for gameplay.

Instructions

Create AnimationTree node. (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": "create_animation_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutMsNo
autoConnectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral hint is '(Compatibility tool)', which suggests a specific operational mode or limitation but fails to explain what compatibility means, what side effects occur, or what the node creation entails.

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 extremely brief at six words across two fragments. While appropriately sized for a simple tool, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical consumes space without adding actionable value since its meaning is never explained.

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?

Given zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient for confident tool invocation. It omits explanations for both parameters and leaves the 'Compatibility tool' designation ambiguous, failing to provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's scope or return value.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect). The description completely fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control, what the timeout applies to, or what auto-connection connects to.

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 tool creates an 'AnimationTree node', providing a specific verb and resource type. However, it does not explain why one should use this instead of the generic 'add_node' sibling tool, and the '(Compatibility tool)' qualifier is included without definition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_node', nor does it explain what 'Compatibility tool' signifies or any prerequisites for invocation. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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