Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_export_info

Retrieve Godot project export configurations to inspect platform build settings and deployment targets.

Instructions

Get export configuration info. (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_export_info"
  }
}

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not clarify what 'Compatibility tool' means (deprecated? specific renderer mode?), nor does it disclose return format, potential errors, or state changes.

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 brief and front-loaded, but the '(Compatibility tool)' remark wastes space without explanation. It is appropriately concise but underspecified for the complexity of the tool's context.

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 lack of output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It should explain what 'export configuration info' entails (presets, paths, settings) and what the 'compatibility' label signifies.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to compensate by explaining the semantic purpose of timeoutMs (timeout for what operation?) or autoConnect (connect to what?). The schema provides types and defaults, but the description adds no meaning beyond that.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('export configuration info'), but fails to distinguish from sibling tools like list_export_presets or export_project. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and unexplained, leaving the tool's specific scope ambiguous.

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 list_export_presets or export_project. No mention of prerequisites, side effects, or why this is labeled a 'compatibility tool'.

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