Godot MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying it returns 'all properties' and clarifies the return format with examples, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (description, Args, Returns, Examples), front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, such as clarifying the return format and providing usage examples, with no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It includes purpose, parameters, return format, and usage examples, making it sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'Defaults to active scene' for scene_path, which is already in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('all properties of a specific node'), specifying it's by scene path. It distinguishes from siblings like godot_get_scene_tree (which gets tree structure) and godot_set_node_property (which modifies properties).

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 'Examples' section provides explicit 'Use when' scenarios that guide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. It gives concrete examples like 'What are the properties of the Player node?' and 'Get transform of res://enemy.tscn root node', which help differentiate from tools like godot_get_scene_tree or godot_get_resource.

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