Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_editor_screenshot

Capture Godot editor viewport screenshots enabling AI assistants to visually inspect scene layouts, debug node configurations, and verify project state remotely.

Instructions

Capture editor viewport screenshot. (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_editor_screenshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutMsNo
autoConnectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 states what is captured but fails to explain the return format (file path, base64, binary data), the effect of timeoutMs on rendering, or what autoConnect does. The 'compatibility tool' label hints at special behavior but remains opaque.

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 six words plus a parenthetical, but the space is poorly utilized. The '(Compatibility tool)' annotation consumes characters without adding actionable information, while critical details about parameters and return values are omitted.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description should explain what the tool returns (image data format) and clarify the connection-related parameters, given the lack of structured metadata elsewhere.

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 completely fails to compensate. Neither timeoutMs (controls screenshot capture timeout) nor autoConnect (likely handles connection logic) are mentioned or explained, leaving both parameters undocumented.

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?

States specific action (Capture) and resource (editor viewport screenshot), distinguishing it from sibling tool 'get_game_screenshot'. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained and potentially confusing without context about what compatibility it refers to.

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 'compare_screenshots'. Does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an active editor connection or when the timeout parameter should be adjusted.

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