Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_theme_info

Retrieve theme override information from Godot projects to inspect UI styling properties and analyze custom theme configurations via the MCP Bridge.

Instructions

Get theme override info. (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_theme_info"
  }
}

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, the description carries full burden but discloses almost nothing. The 'Compatibility tool' hint suggests legacy behavior but doesn't explain what compatibility means, what gets returned, or timeout/autoConnect implications.

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 brief (four words), but the '(Compatibility tool)' aside consumes space without adding actionable value. Front-loading is present but content is insufficient.

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 given the tool has parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description omits return value structure, error conditions, and Godot-specific theme override semantics.

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 has 0% description coverage for timeoutMs and autoConnect. The description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control or their default behaviors.

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 theme override info') but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained. Does not clarify how this differs from create_theme or the various set_theme_* siblings.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus create_theme or other theme-related tools. No mention of prerequisites, side effects, or workflow context.

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