Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

simulate_mouse_click

Automate mouse click interactions in Godot Engine projects to test UI functionality, simulate user input, or enable AI assistant control through the MCP Bridge.

Instructions

Simulate mouse click. (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": "simulate_mouse_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutMsNo
autoConnectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses almost nothing about side effects (what gets clicked?), state changes, or the meaning of 'Compatibility tool'. It fails to explain what the timeoutMs or autoConnect behaviors affect.

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?

The description is brief (4 words), but the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment consumes space without earning its place—it provides no actionable information. The first sentence is front-loaded but redundant with the tool name.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It omits critical context such as coordinate requirements (implied by additionalProperties), connection behavior, and the meaning of 'compatibility'.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates with zero information about timeoutMs (operation timeout? connection timeout?) or autoConnect (connect to what?). The additionalProperties: true flag suggests coordinates or targets might be accepted, but the description is silent on this.

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 basic action (simulate mouse click) but borders on tautology since it merely restates the tool name. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained jargon that doesn't clarify scope or distinguish from siblings like 'simulate_mouse_move' or 'simulate_key'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus sibling simulation tools (simulate_mouse_move, simulate_key, simulate_sequence) or prerequisites (e.g., whether a game must be running, if coordinates are required via additionalProperties).

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