Godot AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

editor_manage

Manage a live Godot editor session: retrieve editor state and selection, set selected nodes, read performance monitors, clear logs, quit the editor, and evaluate GDScript in the running game.

Instructions

Editor selection, performance monitors, quit, log clearing, game eval.

Resource forms (prefer for active-session reads): godot://editor/state, godot://selection/current, godot://performance

Ops: • state() Editor version, project name, current scene, readiness, play state. • selection_get() Currently selected node paths in the editor. • selection_set(paths) Replace the selection with the given list of scene paths. • monitors_get(monitors=None) Performance singleton values (FPS, memory, draw calls, etc.). Pass a list of monitor names to filter; None returns everything. • quit() Gracefully quit the Godot editor on next frame. • logs_clear(clear_debugger_errors=False) Clear the MCP log buffer. Returns cleared_count. Pass clear_debugger_errors=True to also clear the Debugger dock's visible Errors-tab rows (user-facing UI, so opt-in only); the response then includes debugger_errors_cleared. • game_eval(code) Execute GDScript in the running game with return values. Uses 'await' so user code can await internally. Errors return fast and actionable: EVAL_COMPILE_ERROR for a syntax/parse error, EVAL_RUNTIME_ERROR (with the real message + line) for a runtime error; EVAL_GAME_NOT_READY if the game can't service evals — still launching (retry once it's up), the _mcp_game_helper autoload is missing/disabled, its main loop is not advancing (focus the game), or its debugger session closed; EVAL_HUNG for a live game's genuine infinite loop / never-firing await; EVAL_RESULT_TOO_LARGE if the returned value serializes past the debugger channel's capacity (return a smaller slice).

Canonical call shape: {"op": "<verb>", "params": {...}}. Flat op parameters are accepted as a compatibility alias when the client transmits them; op and session_id remain top-level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`op`	Yes
`params`	No
`session_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.1.4Aug 10, 2026
Removedv3.0.7Jul 26, 2026
First observedv2.9.1Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden—and it does: it discloses that quit() is graceful and next-frame, logs_clear returns counts and only clears the visible Debugger errors when explicitly requested, selection_set replaces the selection, and game_eval enumerates fast, actionable error codes including hung and oversized results. This is high-value behavioral disclosure beyond what the generic schema could convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but organized with a summary, resource-form note, bulleted ops, and a canonical call shape. Each section adds needed information; it is front-loaded and scannable, though a little more trimming around resource-form vs op duplication would tighten it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a seven-op dispatcher with no annotations and a generic input schema, the description covers call shape, operation semantics, defaults, and error behavior thoroughly; an output schema exists so return-value details need not be repeated. It still leaves some contextual gaps such as session_id usage and explicit prerequisites for selection_set, but nothing critical for basic invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and params is only a free-form object, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It defines every operation signature, defaults, value types, and effects (paths list, monitors list or None, clear_debugger_errors boolean, code string), fully compensating for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a compact enumeration of the tool's domains (selection, performance monitors, quit, log clearing, game eval) and then names each operation with a clear verb and target. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like editor_state or logs_read, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides concrete routing cues: resource forms are preferred for active-session reads, logs_clear requires opt-in for the user-facing Debugger dock, and game_eval explains retry conditions for EVAL_GAME_NOT_READY. However, it never explicitly names sibling tools or states 'use this tool when X instead of Y', leaving some alternation to inference.

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