Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

project_path_to_uid

Convert res:// paths to Godot UIDs to resolve resource references. Maps file paths to unique identifiers for stable asset tracking in Godot projects.

Instructions

Convert res:// path to UID. (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": "project_path_to_uid"
  }
}

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 only adds the 'Compatibility tool' classification but fails to disclose whether this performs a filesystem lookup, requires an open project, returns a string format, or has side effects.

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?

The description is extremely brief (six words plus a parenthetical). While efficient, it is underspecified given the lack of schema documentation and output schema, failing to front-load critical usage 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 descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should compensate with return type information, parameter details, and error conditions. It provides none of these, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description mentions a conceptual input (res:// path) that does not appear in the schema properties (timeoutMs, autoConnect). While it hints at the domain input via additionalProperties, it offers no explanation for the defined timeoutMs or autoConnect parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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 conversion operation (res:// path to UID) and identifies it as a 'Compatibility tool', which provides domain context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'uid_to_project_path' despite the directional relationship being implicit in the names.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites for invocation. The '(Compatibility tool)' hint suggests legacy use cases but does not specify when this conversion is necessary versus working with native paths.

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