Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_collision_info

Retrieve collision shape data from Godot engine nodes to analyze physics boundaries and geometric properties.

Instructions

Get collision shape information. (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": "get_collision_info"
  }
}

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 carries full burden but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits. The parameters 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' suggest this connects to a running Godot instance, but the description doesn't explain the connection mechanism, failure modes, or return format.

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?

The description is extremely brief with no wasted words. However, this conciseness crosses into under-specification. The front-loading is adequate (purpose first, compatibility note second), but there is insufficient content overall.

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 the presence of 2 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. For a Godot engine tool that presumably interfaces with physics/collision systems, the lack of explanation about return values, connection requirements, or the 'compatibility' nature of the tool leaves significant gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It completely fails to explain the two parameters: 'timeoutMs' (what operation times out?) and 'autoConnect' (connect to what? the editor? a running game?). The relationship between these connection-oriented parameters and collision shape retrieval is unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Get collision shape information'), but provides no differentiation from siblings like 'setup_collision' or 'get_physics_layers'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds confusing context without explanation of what it is compatible with or why.

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 provided on when to use this versus 'setup_collision', 'get_physics_layers', or other related tools. No mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a selected node or running game instance (implied by the autoConnect parameter).

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