Retrieves metadata for a Godot project from a specified directory path so AI agents can inspect project details before launching, running, or managing scenes and nodes.
Retrieve metadata about a Godot project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory |
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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — not what fields the metadata contains, not what happens on an invalid projectPath. It essentially restates the tool name.
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?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what "metadata" is returned — project name, version, settings, scene list? It does not, leaving the agent unable to predict the result. For a sole-parameter info tool this is a real gap.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Path to the Godot project directory"), so the schema fully documents it. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra meaning such as path format or relative-vs-absolute handling.
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?
"Retrieve metadata about a Godot project" names a verb and resource, but "metadata" is undefined and overlaps heavily with sibling tools such as get_project_overview, get_project_setting, and get_godot_version. An agent cannot tell from this text which of those returns what.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than the many similar read-only siblings (get_project_overview, get_project_setting, list_project_files, validate_project). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.