Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_game_node_property

Set properties on active Godot game nodes during runtime. Modify node attributes like position or visibility in running game sessions through the WebSocket bridge.

Instructions

Set runtime node property. (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": "set_game_node_property"
  }
}

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 disclosure burden. It mentions 'runtime' (indicating it affects running game instances) and 'Compatibility tool' (suggesting legacy support), but lacks critical details about side effects, persistence, or the meaning of the 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 at only six words plus a parenthetical. No filler content, though the brevity contributes to under-specification. The parenthetical is appropriately placed at the end.

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 the tool's capability for arbitrary property setting via additionalProperties and zero schema documentation. Without output schema or annotations, the description should elaborate on the property-setting mechanism, possible errors, or return behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It fails to document 'timeoutMs' or 'autoConnect', nor does it explain that 'additionalProperties: true' allows passing arbitrary node property names as keys. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the current description alone.

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 core action (Set runtime node property) with a specific verb and resource, but fails to differentiate from similar siblings like 'set_game_node_properties' (plural) or 'batch_set_property'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at legacy status but doesn't clarify scope limitations.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the plural 'set_game_node_properties' or 'batch_set_property'. Given the 'Compatibility tool' label, it should explicitly state whether this is deprecated or when the modern alternatives are preferred.

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