Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

search_in_files

Locate specific text across Godot project files to find code references, node names, and resource paths.

Instructions

Search text across files. (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": "search_in_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutMsNo
autoConnectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, yet the description discloses nothing about search scope (which files?), matching behavior (regex vs literal?), output format, or what the connection-oriented parameters control. 'Compatibility tool' hints at behavior but remains 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 (two fragments), but the '(Compatibility tool)' tag wastes limited space without adding actionable information. Front-loaded with the verb, yet under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 given zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. A search tool requires disclosure of search syntax, scope, and return values—none of which are present.

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', but the description fails to compensate by explaining what these control (connection to what? timeout for what operation?). The parameters appear unrelated to the stated file-searching purpose.

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 ('Search text across files') but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic without elaboration. Critically fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'search_files', leaving ambiguity about which search tool to use.

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 '(Compatibility tool)' label implies a legacy or fallback use case, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites. No mention of when to prefer this over 'search_files' or what 'compatibility' refers to.

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