Run a specific Godot scene in the connected editor, or launch the currently open scene when no scene path is given. Requires the project path.
Run a scene in the connected Godot editor. If scenePath is omitted, run the currently open scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenePath | No | Optional existing .tscn or .scn path relative to projectPath. | |
| 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. 'Run a scene in the connected Godot editor' implies an existing editor connection (relevant given siblings godot_editor_status and install_godot_editor_bridge) but never states it as a prerequisite, nor whether the call blocks, what it returns, or what happens on failure.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the primary action front-loaded and the parameter-default behavior immediately after. Nothing superfluous and nothing buried.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. Still missing the most consequential context for an agent: that a live editor connection (bridge) must already exist, and whether the call is synchronous or long-running.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: the schema documents scenePath only as an optional path, while the description explains the default behavior when it is omitted (run the currently open scene). projectPath's semantics are covered by its own schema description.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Run a scene') targeting the connected Godot editor, which is clearly distinct from siblings like godot_open_scene and godot_stop_scene. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
The second sentence supplies conditional usage ('if scenePath is omitted, run the currently open scene'), which is genuine guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over godot_open_scene or what prerequisite state the editor must be in, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.