quit_godot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the destructive action of closing an editor and the scope restriction. It does not describe return behavior or handling of unsaved changes, but the core side effect and boundary are transparent.

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 with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded before the clarifying restriction, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the source (launch_editor), the scope (this server), and the limitation. Only minor details like no-op or error behavior when no editor is open are omitted.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete by default; the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds useful context about how the target editor is identified—via launch_editor—rather than listing nonexistent parameters.

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 'Close' as the verb and 'Godot editor' as the resource, and specifies the scope 'launched by this MCP server via launch_editor.' This distinguishes it from siblings like stop_project and run_scene, which target running processes/scenes rather than the editor itself.

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?

Explicitly ties usage to a prior launch_editor call and adds an exclusion: only server-spawned editors are affected. This tells an agent when the tool applies and when it does not, even though no alternative sibling tool is relevant for this action.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.