Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_particle_material

Configure particle process materials in Godot Engine through AI assistant integration, controlling emission parameters, textures, and visual effects via the MCP Bridge.

Instructions

Configure particle process material. (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_particle_material"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutMsNo
autoConnectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Configure' implies mutation but doesn't disclose side effects, idempotency, or what happens to existing material properties. 'Compatibility tool' hints at behavioral context but fails to explain the implications (e.g., rendering mode restrictions).

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 with zero redundancy. Two short clauses front-load the core purpose. However, brevity crosses into under-specification given the lack of structured metadata.

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 configuration tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations. Fails to explain parameter purposes, acceptable values for additionalProperties, return behavior, or the specific 'Compatibility' context. Sibling tools suggest a rich API where this tool's specific role needs clearer delineation.

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 and includes 'additionalProperties: true', indicating arbitrary material properties are accepted. Description completely fails to document the two defined parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) or mention the flexible additionalProperties capability, leaving all parameter semantics undocumented.

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?

States specific action (Configure) and target resource (particle process material). The '(Compatibility tool)' tag hints at specialized scope, though it ambiguously could mean legacy API support or Compatibility rendering mode without clarifying which.

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 versus siblings like 'apply_particle_preset' or 'set_particle_color_gradient'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical implies a constraint but doesn't specify prerequisites or alternatives.

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