Read and parse project.godot to return sections and raw values, plus input map, plugin, autoload, and project-name fields for Godot 4 project inspection.
Read and parse project.godot. Returns parsed sections and raw values, with convenient input map, plugin, autoload, and project-name fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Absolute path to a directory containing project.godot. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-only, non-mutating parse and sketches the return shape, but omits failure behavior (missing/unparseable project.godot), permission needs, and whether parsing is recursive or lazy. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the payoff (returned fields) trailing. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (parsed sections, raw values, input map, plugin, autoload, project-name). It stops short of error/edge-case behavior, but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting the absolute-path requirement, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about projectPath semantics (e.g., relative paths, symlinks), so it neither compensates nor detracts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource: 'Read and parse project.godot', and it further names the returned artifacts (parsed sections, raw values, input map, plugin, autoload, project-name keys). This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling editor-control tools like godot_open_scene or capture_godot_viewport.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the resource ('project.godot') and the path parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to any alternative tool. An agent can infer it is for inspecting a Godot project, but nothing routes it against siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.