Find and list Godot projects in a specified directory, optionally searching recursively, to locate project folders for AI-assisted editing and running.
List Godot projects in a directory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | Yes | Directory to search for Godot projects | |
| recursive | No | Whether to search recursively (default: false) |
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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what counts as a Godot project (presence of project.godot?), what the result looks like, or how recursion affects output size — all useful context for a discovery tool with no output schema.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but its brevity edges toward under-specification for a tool that returns an undocumented result shape.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned — project paths, names, counts, or metadata — and it says nothing. It also omits the definition of 'project' detection, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding whether this tool will answer its question.
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 100%, with both 'directory' and 'recursive' (including its default) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional semantics such as expected path format or recursion depth behavior.
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 ('List') and a specific resource ('Godot projects in a directory'), which an agent can distinguish from file-level siblings like list_project_files or single-project siblings like get_project_info. It never explicitly names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the noun rather than stated.
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 guidance on when to choose this over list_project_files or get_project_overview, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage 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.