Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_physics_layers

Retrieve collision layer and mask data from Godot game engine projects to inspect physics configuration and troubleshoot collision detection issues.

Instructions

Get collision layer and mask. (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_physics_layers"
  }
}

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 full burden but fails to disclose return format, data structure (e.g., 32-bit integers, layer names), or what 'compatibility' means. 'Get' implies read-only but return value semantics are missing.

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 concise (6 words), which is efficient but insufficient given the information debt from missing annotations and schema descriptions. Front-loaded with the action, but the parenthetical compatibility note is cryptic.

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 physics-system tool with no output schema. Fails to explain return values, doesn't compensate for 0% schema coverage, and leaves 'compatibility' unexplained despite this being crucial context for a Godot development tool.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage (timeoutMs, autoConnect undocumented), yet the description provides no parameter semantics. Critical gap since these generic parameter names give no indication of their function (Godot connection timeout? Operation timeout?).

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?

The description states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('collision layer and mask'), distinguishing it from sibling 'set_physics_layers'. However, it lacks domain context about what these layers represent in Godot's physics system.

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?

Only hints at usage through '(Compatibility tool)' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'get_collision_info' or 'setup_collision', nor what 'compatibility' implies (legacy Godot versions?).

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