Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
laaielichter

Godotwright

by laaielichter
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Fix review findings mechanically

godot_fix
Destructive

Applies mechanical fixes for Godot review findings, rewriting only expected lines and optionally saving changes while listing unfixable lines with reasons.

Instructions

Apply the mechanical fixes for review findings instead of editing them one by one: api/coroutine-without-await, api/freed-check-order, api/get-meta-null-default, api/infer-variant, api/multimesh-format-after-count, api/timer-start-outside-tree, quality/mojibake, quality/standalone-ternary, quality/string-signal. Each fix rewrites only the line a finding points to, only when it looks exactly as expected, and is labelled safe (it only removes the problem: a freed check put first, get_meta() with has_meta(), a lone ternary as if/else, text encoded twice decoded, emit_signal() as signal.emit(), a MultiMesh format moved before instance_count, Timer.start() moved after add_child(), weakref() typed WeakRef) or check (it changes more: an await added to a coroutine call makes its caller a coroutine; a guessed type). Without write it shows the changes; with write: true it applies them and reviews the changed files again, returning what is left. Only safe fixes unless include_check: true. Lines it cannot fix are listed with the reason. Run godot_review first to see the findings, and godot_check after writing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoThe project folder, or any file or folder inside it (Godotwright walks up to project.godot). Relative paths start at the server's folder. Default: the current project.
filesNoonly these res:// files
rulesNoonly these rules (fixable: api/coroutine-without-await, api/freed-check-order, api/get-meta-null-default, api/infer-variant, api/multimesh-format-after-count, api/timer-start-outside-tree, quality/mojibake, quality/standalone-ternary, quality/string-signal)
writeNowrite the fixes (default false: show them only)
detailNobrief: short output with capped lists; full: everything (default for this premium profile: full).
include_checkNoalso apply fixes labelled check (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.2

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say destructive and non-idempotent; the description supplies the nuance an agent needs: fixes touch only the flagged line and only when it matches expectations, safe fixes are purely subtractive while `check` fixes can convert callers into coroutines or introduce guessed types, writes trigger a re-review, and unfixable lines are reported with reasons. No annotation contradiction — destructiveHint=true is consistent with a write-capable fixer.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries information, but it is one long run-on paragraph with dense parentheticals enumerating rule semantics. Grouping the safe/check catalog into a shorter form would improve scanability without losing content.

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?

For a write-capable tool with no output schema, the description covers mode selection, preconditions, side effects, post-write behavior, and what the response reports (applied vs remaining vs unfixable with reasons). Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by explaining what `write`, `include_check`, and `rules` actually mean in terms of fix categories (safe vs check) and that non-listed rules are out of scope. It stops short of describing `detail` or `files`/`path` resolution, which stay schema-only.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Apply the mechanical fixes for review findings") and immediately distinguishes itself from manual editing and from the sibling review/check tools. The enumerated rule IDs and the safe/check taxonomy pin down scope precisely.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit workflow: "Run godot_review first to see the findings, and godot_check after writing." It also states the default gating behavior (dry-run without `write`, safe-only unless `include_check: true`), so the agent knows exactly which mode to choose.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools