Skip to main content
Glama

Signal Manage

signal_manage

Manage Godot signals by listing connections, connecting signals to target methods, or disconnecting existing ones. Use list to inspect, connect to wire events, and disconnect to remove them.

Instructions

Signals (Godot's event/observer mechanism) — list, connect, disconnect.

Ops: • list(path, include_editor=False) List all signals on the node and their current connections (built-in and custom). By default editor-internal connections (the SceneTreeEditor dock and friends) are filtered out — pass include_editor=True to surface them. The response carries editor_connection_count so an agent can tell how many were hidden. • connect(path, signal, target, method) Connect a signal from path to a method on the target node. Undoable. • disconnect(path, signal, target, method) Remove an existing connection. Undoable.

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opYes
paramsNo
session_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.1.4
  2. Removedv3.0.7
  3. First observedv2.9.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that connect/disconnect are undoable, that list hides editor-internal connections by default, and that editor_connection_count reveals hidden entries. It also documents the canonical call shape and the flat-parameter compatibility alias, which are non-obvious behavioral details.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary, then uses compact bulleted ops with consistent formatting. Every sentence adds useful invocation information, and the compatibility note is justified by the intentionally permissive params schema.

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?

All three operations are fully specified, the call shape is explicit, and the output schema handles return values. The description provides enough context for correct invocation despite the very generic input schema and absence of annotations.

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 compensate. It does so thoroughly by providing exact per-op signatures, explaining the include_editor default, and defining how params should be structured. The names and supplied context are sufficient for an agent to invoke each operation.

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 specific resource ('Signals' in Godot) and the three operations it supports: list, connect, and disconnect. It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The op list and examples make the intended usage reasonably inferable, but the description never states when to use this tool versus an alternative or when not to use it. The include_editor guidance is useful but is parameter-level guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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