Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

read_script

Retrieve Godot script file contents to enable AI assistants to analyze, debug, and modify game code in development projects.

Instructions

Read script file content. (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": "read_script"
  }
}

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The 'Compatibility tool' hint suggests deprecated or legacy behavior but doesn't explain what that means for the agent (should it avoid this tool?). Fails to disclose what the timeout/connect parameters imply about the operation's blocking behavior or failure modes.

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 brief (two fragments), which limits redundancy, but the second fragment ('Compatibility tool') is unactionable without explanation. Appropriately front-loaded with the core verb.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and mysterious connection parameters, the description leaves critical gaps. It doesn't explain error conditions (file not found?), return format (string content? lines?), or the connection lifecycle implied by the parameters.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description completely omits any explanation of 'timeoutMs' or 'autoConnect'. For a 'read' operation, these connection-related parameters are non-obvious and require semantic context that is absent.

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 basic action (Read script file content) but provides no scope clarification—which script? Currently open? By path? The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained. It distinguishes from 'edit' or 'create' siblings by verb choice, but doesn't clarify vs 'get_open_scripts' or 'validate_script'.

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 on when to use this versus 'edit_script', 'validate_script', or 'get_open_scripts'. No prerequisites stated (e.g., must a script be open? Must the engine be running given the connection-related parameters?).

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