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 context about returning 'currently open' scenes and including the active scene, which is useful behavioral detail beyond annotations, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format and usage examples in a structured, efficient manner. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), rich annotations, and clear purpose, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the return format. A minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or edge case details, but overall it's sufficient for agent use.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist, focusing instead on return value semantics, which adds value beyond the empty input schema.

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 all scenes currently open') and resource ('in the Godot editor'), including the active scene. It distinguishes from siblings like godot_list_files (which lists files) and godot_get_scene_tree (which gets scene structure).

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 explicit usage examples ('What scenes are open?' or 'List all scenes'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the purpose implies differentiation.

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