Launch a Godot project or specific scene and capture its runtime output for debugging and AI-assisted inspection.
Run the Godot project and capture output
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene | No | Optional: Specific scene to run | |
| headless | No | ||
| sessionId | No | Explicit process/debug session handle; required for follow-up tools on MCP 2026-07-28 | |
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| 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 openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only "capture output," without saying whether the process stays running after return, whether output is streamed or returned once, whether a session/handle is created, or how long it blocks — all critical for a process-launching tool that gates follow-up calls.
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, front-loaded and free of padding, so it is efficient. But the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline — nothing is said that an agent could not already read from the tool name.
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?
The sentence is not complete for this tool: it spawns a long-running process, takes an undocumented timeout and headless flag, and produces a session handle used by follow-up tools, with no output schema to fall back on — and none of this is described.
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 coverage is 60%: `headless` and `timeoutMs` carry no schema descriptions at all, and the description says nothing about either — despite timeout semantics being highly consequential for a blocking run. It also doesn't explain scene-selection behavior or when sessionId must be supplied, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 concrete verb and resource ("Run the Godot project") and adds "capture output," so the basic action is clear. But the sibling set contains run_scene, run_playtest, run_scene_test, and launch_editor, and nothing here distinguishes running the whole project from running a single scene or a playtest — the agent must guess.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. With four near-neighbor launch tools in the sibling list, the absence of any routing statement leaves the selection decision entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.