Retrieve Godot editor output logs to debug game engine errors and monitor real-time console messages.
Get editor output log. (Compatibility tool)
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_output_log"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| autoConnect | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails to specify return format, content structure, or what 'compatibility tool' implies (deprecated? alternative API?). It doesn't mention the timeout behavior or auto-connection logic implied by the parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, consisting of one sentence plus a parenthetical. While efficiently structured, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise given the lack of schema documentation and annotations. The '(Compatibility tool)' phrase earns some contextual value but remains unexplained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description should explain parameter semantics and return values. It provides neither, leaving critical gaps. The 'compatibility tool' hint suggests additional context but remains opaque.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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, omitting any mention of 'timeoutMs' (connection timeout behavior) or 'autoConnect' (automatic connection logic). The description provides zero semantic meaning for the two available parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('editor output log'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_editor_errors' and 'clear_output'. However, it doesn't clarify what content the output log contains (e.g., stdout, warnings, print statements) or elaborate on the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'get_editor_errors' or 'get_test_report', nor when to prefer it over other logging tools. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag suggests legacy usage but offers no explicit recommendations or prerequisites for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.