Runs a Godot test scene headlessly until it exits, returning exit status, errors, and timeout details for automated test validation.
Run a headless test scene until it exits. Reports exit status, errors and timeout; test scripts must quit with their result code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenePath | Yes | Relative or res:// PackedScene path | |
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, the description discloses headless execution, waiting until exit, reporting exit status, errors, and timeout, and the requirement that test scripts quit with their result code. Those are meaningful behavioral traits for an executing tool. It still does not cover permissions, project import prerequisites, or side effects.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by observable results and the test-script contract. There is no redundant or filler wording.
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 usefully states what is reported: exit status, errors, and timeout. It remains somewhat incomplete for an execution tool because it omits selection guidance relative to sibling runners and any environment prerequisites, though nothing critical for a basic call is missing.
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 67%, with projectPath and scenePath documented in the schema, while timeoutMs has bounds but no textual description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying that a timeout exists and is reported, so it does not compensate for the partial 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: run a headless test scene until it exits. That is much clearer than a bare name, but it does not distinguish the tool from close siblings such as run_scene, run_playtest, or run_gut_tests, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
The phrase 'test scene' implies the intended use, and the requirement that scripts quit with their result code hints at how tests must be authored. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like run_gut_tests or run_scene.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.