Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

setup_physics_body

Configure physics body properties in Godot engine to enable collision detection and physical simulations. Sets up mass, friction, and body types for rigid, static, or kinematic game objects.

Instructions

Configure physics body properties. (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": "setup_physics_body"
  }
}

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 provided, so the description carries full burden. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at behavioral traits (legacy/deprecated status) but provides no explanation of what that means for usage, side effects, or idempotency.

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 5 words plus a parenthetical. No wasted words, though the brevity is insufficient given the complete lack of structured documentation and parameter descriptions.

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?

With zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides inadequate detail. The mismatch between the described purpose (configuring physics properties) and actual parameters (timeout/autoConnect) leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke this tool correctly.

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. The description mentions 'properties' but fails to explain the actual parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), which appear to be operational/connection settings rather than physics body properties, creating confusion about what this tool actually configures.

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 verb (Configure) and resource (physics body) but uses vague scope ('properties') and fails to distinguish from siblings like setup_collision or clarify which properties are being configured.

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 tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain the implications of the '(Compatibility tool)' designation.

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