Godot AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Editor Manage

editor_manage

Control a live Godot editor: retrieve state, manage node selections, monitor performance, clear logs, quit, and run GDScript in the 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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well: quit is 'graceful' and deferred to the next frame, logs_clear is opt-in for the user-facing Debugger dock, selection_set replaces the selection, and game_eval enumerates specific error codes and their causes. This gives an agent a strong mental model of side effects and failure modes.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but well-structured: a one-line summary, a resource-forms note, and a bulleted op list. Each bullet earns its place, especially the game_eval error taxonomy, which is dense but necessary. The canonical call shape is placed at the end where it ties the format together.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the multi-operation nature, this description is complete: it covers every op in the schema, defines parameter semantics, explains error behavior, and specifies invocation conventions. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value prose is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does. Each operation's parameters are explained with types and defaults—selection_set(paths), monitors_get(monitors=None), logs_clear(clear_debugger_errors=False), game_eval(code)—and the call-shape paragraph clarifies where op, params, and session_id belong.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a concrete summary of what the tool covers—editor selection, performance monitors, quit, log clearing, and game eval—and then enumerates each operation with a verb and resource. This makes the tool's scope immediately recognizable and distinguishable from more specialized siblings like editor_state, logs_read, and game_manage.

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 gives clear guidance on invoking operations, including the canonical call shape and the flat-parameter alias. It also advises preferring resource forms for active-session reads, which helps route usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as editor_state or logs_read.

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