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. The description adds useful context by specifying the return format (path, type, name, metadata object) and clarifying it works on resource files, not just any file. 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, the Args section clarifies parameter usage, and the Returns section specifies output format without redundancy.

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 read-only metadata retrieval tool with comprehensive annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the return format (compensating for no output schema) and resource examples. However, it could better explain metadata content or error cases for missing resources.

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% with one parameter (resource_path) fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example path format ('res://assets/player.png'), but doesn't explain path validation or supported resource types. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Returns metadata about') and resource type ('specific resource file'), with examples of resource types (texture, audio, mesh). It distinguishes from siblings like godot_list_files (which lists files) and godot_get_node (which gets node info).

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 description implies usage for retrieving metadata about existing resources, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like godot_list_files (for listing) or godot_get_node (for node-specific info). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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