Better Godot MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

animation

Creates and manages Godot animations by adding AnimationPlayer nodes, animations, tracks, and keyframes, while listing existing animation data.

Instructions

Animation management. Actions: create_player|add_animation|add_track|add_keyframe|list. Use help tool for full docs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "animation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`loop`	No	Whether animation loops
`name`	No	AnimationPlayer node name
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`parent`	No	Parent node path
`duration`	No	Animation duration in seconds
`property`	No	Target property for track
`anim_name`	No	Animation name
`node_path`	No	Target node path for track
`scene_path`	No	Path to scene file
`track_type`	No	Track type: value, method, bezier
`project_path`	No	Path to Godot project directory

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.20.0Jul 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.5.1Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the list of actions. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or state changes (e.g., whether animations are persisted to files or only in memory).

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?

The description is very concise, with two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the domain and a list of actions. However, it relies on an external tool for full documentation, which could be seen as a space-saving choice rather than a complete description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema (as indicated by context signals) and 11 parameters, the description does not explain how actions relate to parameters, what each action returns, or how to chain operations. It is incomplete for an agent to use without referencing the help tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% schema_description_coverage). The description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it only lists action names. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Animation management' and lists five actions (create_player, add_animation, etc.), giving a general idea of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks a specific verb-resource pair and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'editor' or 'nodes', which could also involve animation-related operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply says 'Use help tool for full docs', shifting the responsibility of understanding usage to an external tool. There is no mention of when to use specific actions or what prerequisites are needed.

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

Deploy Server