Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

run_test_scenario

Execute automated test scenarios in Godot engine projects to validate functionality, verify behaviors, and detect issues through the MCP Bridge.

Instructions

Run automated test scenario. (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": "run_test_scenario"
  }
}

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 are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether this modifies the project state, what constitutes a 'scenario', what the return value indicates, or side effects. The term 'Compatibility tool' is unexplained.

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?

Extremely brief (one sentence plus fragment), which technically avoids fluff, but the brevity is inappropriate given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting schema documentation. Information density is low relative to what is needed.

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 testing tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. The description omits: the nature of test scenarios, how to configure them (given additionalProperties), output format, and relationship to the broader testing ecosystem evident in sibling tools.

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 has 0% description coverage and 'additionalProperties: true', indicating arbitrary extra parameters are accepted—neither fact is mentioned in the description. While 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' are somewhat self-descriptive, the description fails to explain what timeout applies to or what auto-connect connects to.

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 (run test scenario) but lacks specificity regarding what exactly is being tested (scene, project, unit tests?) and does not distinguish from sibling tool 'run_stress_test'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus 'run_stress_test', 'assert_node_state', or other testing siblings. No prerequisites, success criteria, or failure modes mentioned.

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