Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

rename_node

Rename nodes in Godot game engine scenes to organize project hierarchies. Updates node identifiers while maintaining scene structure and script references.

Instructions

Rename node. (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": "rename_node"
  }
}

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 are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only adds the label 'Compatibility tool' without explaining what compatibility issues exist, whether this performs a destructive update, or how it handles node references. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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?

The description is extremely brief with no wasted words. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and front-loaded information about the tool's nature would be better integrated with usage guidance rather than appended ambiguously.

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 the rich sibling tool ecosystem (100+ tools), lack of output schema, and the odd input schema (generic connection params instead of rename fields), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the schema structure or what data should be passed via additionalProperties.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description fails to compensate. It does not explain the unusual absence of rename-specific parameters (like node_path or new_name) despite 'additionalProperties: true', nor clarify the purpose of timeoutMs and autoConnect in this context.

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?

The description states the basic action (rename) and resource (node) clearly, but the '(Compatibility tool)' qualifier is unexplained and confusing. It does not effectively distinguish why this tool exists alongside sibling node manipulation tools like move_node or duplicate_node.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The '(Compatibility tool)' label hints at specific usage constraints but fails to explain them or mention preferred alternatives, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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