Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

reload_project

Rescan and reload Godot project files to synchronize external changes and refresh the editor workspace automatically.

Instructions

Rescan and reload project. (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": "reload_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutMsNo
autoConnectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Rescan and reload' implies state mutation but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., impact on unsaved changes, open scenes, or connected clients), idempotency, or error conditions like timeout behavior.

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 concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the primary action. No filler text. However, the brevity is inappropriate given the lack of schema documentation, though this dimension evaluates structure rather than completeness.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and zero annotation coverage. The description fails to compensate for missing structured metadata, leaving agents uninformed about parameter purposes, return values, or operational constraints.

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 completely omits parameter semantics, failing to explain that timeoutMs controls the operation timeout or that autoConnect manages automatic reconnection behavior. Critical gap given the schema provides no documentation.

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 ('Rescan and reload') and resource ('project'), but lacks differentiation from sibling tool 'reload_plugin'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at legacy/deprecated status but remains vague.

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 minimal guidance via the '(Compatibility tool)' label suggesting backward compatibility use cases, but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or alternatives. Does not clarify when to use this versus 'reload_plugin' or standard project operations.

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