Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

create_scene

Creates new Godot scene files through MCP Bridge WebSocket connection, enabling AI assistants to initialize project structures and automate game development workflows.

Instructions

Create a new scene file. (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_scene"
  }
}

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It identifies the tool as a 'Compatibility tool' (suggesting legacy or alternative behavior) but discloses no side effects, idempotency, failure modes, or state mutation details.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Extremely concise at two brief statements. Front-loaded with the primary action. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation, this brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

Inadequate for a file-creation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters. The 'Compatibility tool' designation raises questions about behavior that the description doesn't answer.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage with two parameters ('timeoutMs', 'autoConnect'). The description completely fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control, what the timeout applies to, or what 'autoConnect' connects to.

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 core action ('Create') and resource ('scene file'), but provides no differentiation from siblings like 'add_scene_instance' or 'save_scene'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical introduces ambiguity without explanation.

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?

Contains no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The '(Compatibility tool)' note implies specialized usage but fails to specify the compatibility scenario or prerequisites.

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