Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_autoload

Unregister autoload singletons from Godot projects to disable global scripts and stop automatic loading.

Instructions

Unregister autoload singleton. (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": "remove_autoload"
  }
}

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Unregister' implies removal from a registry, it fails to clarify whether this destroys the singleton instance, affects running scenes, or requires editor recompilation. The 'Compatibility tool' label lacks elaboration.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the primary verb, and the single parenthetical doesn't waste space. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, this conciseness results in under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to compensate significantly. It fails to do so, leaving the parameters unexplained, the 'compatibility' aspect undefined, and behavioral side effects undocumented.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), and the description adds no semantic meaning for these settings. The agent cannot determine why a timeout or connection setting would be relevant to unregistering an autoload singleton.

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 core action ('Unregister') and target resource ('autoload singleton'), distinguishing it from sibling 'add_autoload'. However, it assumes familiarity with Godot's autoload pattern without explaining what a 'singleton' means in this context.

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?

The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at a specific use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'add_autoload', nor does it explain what makes it a compatibility tool or when unregistering is appropriate.

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