Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Godot MCP Bridge

Godot MCP Bridge

by farrasfadhils
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

tilemap_clear

Clear all tiles from a Godot TileMap to reset level data, remove existing cells, and prepare empty grids for new designs.

Instructions

Clear all tilemap cells. (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": "tilemap_clear"
  }
}

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 full disclosure burden but fails to explain the destructive nature (irreversibility, layer scope), the purpose of the timeoutMs/autoConnect parameters visible in the schema, or what 'compatibility' implies for behavior differences.

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?

While not wasteful, the description is undersized for the information deficit it must cover. Given the lack of annotations, zero schema coverage, and destructive operation type, additional sentences explaining parameters and safety considerations were necessary rather than omitted.

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 destructive operation with undocumented parameters and no output schema. Missing: parameter documentation, return value description, safety warnings about data loss, and explanation of the compatibility qualifier.

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 provides no compensation for the two undocumented parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect). The agent receives no information about what connection timeout or auto-connection refers to in this context.

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?

The description clearly states the core action ('Clear all tilemap cells') with specific scope (all cells vs. individual operations), distinguishing it from siblings like tilemap_set_cell or tilemap_fill_rect. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical lacks explanation, leaving ambiguity about whether this targets legacy systems or specific engine versions.

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 versus alternatives like tilemap_fill_rect or manual cell deletion. The 'Compatibility tool' label suggests specific use cases but offers no elaboration on prerequisites, deprecation status, or migration paths.

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