Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_node_properties

Retrieve Godot node properties via WebSocket bridge to enable AI-powered scene inspection, debugging, and automated game development workflows.

Instructions

Get node properties. (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_node_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutMsNo
autoConnectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
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 but discloses nothing about return format, side effects, or the meaning of 'compatibility'. It does not explain what the operation connects to (given 'autoConnect') or what timeout scenario is being handled.

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 (4 words) and front-loaded, but this conciseness crosses into under-specification. The parenthetical is efficiently placed, yet the overall length is inappropriate for a tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema.

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?

Critical gaps exist: no explanation of which node is being queried (despite the schema lacking a node identifier), no return value description (no output schema exists), and no clarification of the 'compatibility' context. For a property retrieval tool, this is insufficient.

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 mentions no parameters. Given the schema only defines 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' (with additionalProperties: true), the description fails to explain what node identifier is expected, what the timeout applies to, or what connection autoConnect establishes.

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 core action ('Get node properties') and identifies it as a 'Compatibility tool', but fails to specify which node types it targets or how it differs from siblings like 'get_game_node_properties' or 'batch_get_properties'. The scope remains 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?

The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical implies legacy usage but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'get_game_node_properties' or what 'compatibility' refers to. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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