Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_project_info

Retrieve Godot project metadata and autoload configuration to inspect engine settings and global script dependencies programmatically.

Instructions

Get project metadata and autoload information. (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_project_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutMsNo
autoConnectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving metadata and autoloads but does not explain what format the data returns in, whether this requires an active editor connection, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies regarding deprecation or legacy support.

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?

The description is extremely concise at two brief statements. While efficiently structured, this brevity contributes to the information gaps elsewhere, particularly regarding parameter documentation and behavioral 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 zero schema parameter coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to document the parameters, explain the return structure, or clarify the 'compatibility' aspect, leaving critical gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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% for both parameters (`timeoutMs` and `autoConnect`), and the description adds no compensatory information about these parameters, their interaction, or valid usage patterns.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'project metadata and autoload information,' specifying both the action (Get) and resources. However, it fails to clarify how this differs from siblings like `get_project_settings` or `get_autoload`, and the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is unexplained.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous siblings that overlap in scope (e.g., `get_autoload`, `get_project_settings`). The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at specific use cases but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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