Connect to the Godot editor add-on and report the editor version, current scene, play state, project path, and bridge port.
Connect to the Godot editor add-on and report the editor version, current scene, play state, project path, and bridge port.
| 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, and the description does not disclose side effects of "Connect" such as whether it starts or requires the bridge, whether it is read-only, or what happens when the editor is unavailable. It lists reported fields, but that is return content rather than behavioral disclosure.
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 front-loaded sentence states the purpose and enumerates the reported values with no wasted wording.
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?
For a low-complexity status tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, listing the returned fields fills an important gap. It still omits prerequisites and connection behavior, so it is not fully 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?
The only parameter, projectPath, is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Names a specific action (connect/report) and resource (Godot editor status), and enumerates returned fields, making it clearly distinct from scene, play, and install siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it is strong but not fully differentiated.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites such as a running editor/add-on, or alternatives/exclusions. Usage is only implied by the status-reporting wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.