Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

simulate_sequence

Run input sequences with configurable delays in Godot projects to automate gameplay testing and simulate user interactions.

Instructions

Run input sequence with delays. (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_sequence"
  }
}

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only mentions 'delays' as a behavioral trait. It omits safety information (whether this modifies state), timeout failure behavior, autoConnect functionality, and return values. The mention of delays is insufficient for an automation tool.

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 extremely brief at six words plus a parenthetical. While it avoids fluff, it is under-informative for a tool with zero schema documentation and complex behavioral implications. The front-loading is adequate but the density is too low.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description should comprehensively explain the tool's function, parameters, and effects. It provides only a vague high-level summary, leaving critical gaps in documentation.

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%, requiring the description to document timeoutMs and autoConnect. It fails to do so; 'delays' vaguely alludes to timeout behavior but provides no syntax, units, or defaults. autoConnect is entirely undocumented.

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 tool 'runs input sequence with delays,' which provides a verb and resource, but 'input sequence' remains undefined and fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like simulate_action, simulate_key, or replay_recording. The compatibility parenthetical hints at legacy status but doesn't clarify scope.

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)' tag implies legacy status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the more specific simulate_* tools or replay_recording. No prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended alternatives are stated.

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