Godot MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety aspects. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format with pagination details (total, count, offset, has_more) and item structure (path, type, name), which helps the agent understand what to expect. No contradictions 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: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place—no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, list operation), rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return format thoroughly. No output schema exists, so the Returns section is essential and well-provided.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description repeats parameter information in the Args section but adds minimal extra semantic value (e.g., 'res:// directory path' for directory, examples for filter_type). This meets the baseline of 3 when 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 specific action ('Lists files') and resource ('in the Godot project filesystem under a given directory'), distinguishing it from siblings like godot_list_scenes (which lists only scenes) and godot_get_scene_tree (which retrieves scene structure). The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to list files in the project filesystem) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It distinguishes from godot_list_scenes by implication (files vs scenes), but lacks explicit 'use X instead for Y' guidance.

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