Get the current game state as JSON, including positions, health, score, or custom flags reported by the game bridge.
Compact state of the running game as JSON. Fields are game-defined (position, health, score, flags, whatever the bridge reports).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Registered project to target. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the JSON output format, game-defined fields, and that values come from the bridge, but it omits details about freshness, side effects, or error behavior.
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?
The description is a single, tight sentence that communicates the core purpose and dynamic-field caveat without wasted words. The informal 'whatever' is minor but does not hurt clarity.
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 simple state-read tool with one optional parameter Footnote: this is adequate but minimal. It explains output format and field variability, but without an output schema or usage guidance, an agent still lacks some context about when to invoke it and what to expect beyond high-level JSON.
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?
The single parameter 'project' is fully described in the schema as 'Registered project to target.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly identifies the tool as returning the running game's state as JSON and notes that fields are game-defined. This differentiates it enough from siblings like defold_run, defold_input, and defold_log, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'gets' or 'reads'.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies state retrieval but does not explain when to choose it over defold_screen, defold_log, or defold_bridge, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.