Reads properties, methods, signals, and enums of a built-in Godot class from the installed version, returning reflection metadata for API inspection.
Read properties, methods, signals or enums of a built-in class from the installed Godot version. Reflection metadata, not prose documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| section | No | ||
| className | Yes | ||
| includeInherited | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are reflection metadata tied to the installed engine version, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior (despite a limit cap of 500), result shape, or cost of enumerating inherited members.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the second sentence adding a genuinely useful clarifying distinction. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
It conveys the nature of the return value, which matters since there is no output schema, but with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage it leaves filtering, limiting, and inherited-member behavior undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool whose main complexity is in those options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters. The description's enumeration of 'properties, methods, signals or enums' loosely maps to the `section` parameter, but `filter`, `limit`, and especially `includeInherited` get no explanation at all in either schema or description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (properties/methods/signals/enums of a built-in class) and adds the key qualifier that this is reflection metadata from the installed Godot version rather than prose docs. It is clearly distinct from runtime siblings like get_node_properties, though it never names an alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Reflection metadata, not prose documentation' implicitly tells the agent when this is the right source, and 'installed Godot version' implies version-accurate reflection. However, no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance versus get_node_properties or get_project_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.