Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
laaielichter

Godotwright

by laaielichter
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Port Godot 3 scripts to Godot 4

godot_migrate
DestructiveIdempotent

Rewrite Godot 3 GDScript to Godot 4 mechanically: report needed changes or write them, while listing code that still needs manual fixes.

Instructions

Rewrite Godot 3 GDScript to Godot 4 where that is mechanical: @export/@onready/@tool, renamed classes, functions, properties and constants, yield() to await, connect()/emit_signal() to signals, funcref() to callables, members that moved (OS.get_ticks_msec() to Time). Strings, comments and node paths are left alone. Without write it only reports the changes; with write: true it rewrites the scripts. It also lists what still needs a hand (setget, move_and_slide arguments, rpc keywords, export hints it does not know). Scenes and project settings are not migrated; Godot's --convert-3to4 does those. files limits it to some res:// scripts; detail brief shows up to 12 changes per file, full shows every change. Running it twice changes nothing more. Use it before fixing Godot 3 findings from godot_review one by one, and run godot_review afterwards.

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:// scripts
writeNorewrite the scripts on disk (default false: report only)
detailNobrief: short output with capped lists; full: everything (default for this premium profile: full).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / detail / description
      Previous value: -"Output detail (default for this premium profile: full)."New value: +"brief: short output with capped lists; full: everything (default for this premium profile: full)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Project directory or a path inside it (default: the current project)."New value: +"The 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."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely carried by structured data. The description still adds real value on top: the no-write report-only default, the idempotency guarantee ('running it twice changes nothing more'), and the explicit list of what it deliberately leaves for manual fixes. It stops short of describing output shape or failure behavior, so this is solid but not exceptional given the annotation coverage.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the mechanical-rewrite scope comes first, then behavior, then scope limits, then usage ordering. Every sentence carries information, though the run is long and several clauses could be tightened into a list without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully: it says the tool reports changes, lists what still needs a hand (setget, move_and_slide arguments, rpc keywords, unknown export hints), and explains how `detail` shapes the report. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: 'write: true' rewrites scripts while omission only reports, `files` narrows to res:// scripts, and `detail` brief caps at 12 changes per file versus full showing everything.

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?

States a specific verb (rewrite/migrate) and resource (Godot 3 GDScript to Godot 4), then enumerates the exact constructs handled and explicitly excludes strings, comments, node paths, scenes and project settings. An agent can tell it apart from godot_review, godot_rename, or Godot's own --convert-3to4 without opening any schema.

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 explicit ordering guidance: use it before fixing Godot 3 findings from godot_review one by one, and run godot_review afterwards. It also names the alternative for out-of-scope work (--convert-3to4 handles scenes and project settings) and states the dry-run default versus write:true.

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