Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_performance_monitors

Retrieve real-time performance metrics from Godot game engine projects to monitor frame rates, memory usage, and rendering statistics during development.

Instructions

Get performance monitor values. (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_performance_monitors"
  }
}

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It offers only the 'Compatibility tool' hint regarding behavior but omits critical details: return value format, what performance metrics are included, side effects, or connection requirements implied by the 'autoConnect' parameter.

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?

Extremely compact at six words plus a parenthetical. While no words are wasted, the brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication given the lack of schema documentation.

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 data retrieval tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema. The description provides no information about return structure, available metrics, or the purpose of the compatibility layer, leaving critical gaps in the agent's understanding.

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%, requiring the description to compensate for undocumented parameters. It completely fails to explain 'timeoutMs' (connection timeout? collection duration?) or 'autoConnect' (what is being connected to?), leaving parameters semantically opaque.

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?

States the core action ('Get') and resource ('performance monitor values'), but provides no scope boundaries to distinguish from sibling 'get_editor_performance'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is present but cryptic without context about what compatibility it provides.

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?

Contains no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions. The 'Compatibility tool' label implies a specific use case but fails to explain when this compatibility mode is needed versus standard monitoring tools.

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