Godot MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies that removal includes all children and cannot be undone via MCP, which clarifies the irreversible nature beyond the annotation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 action, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first explains behavior, Args clarify parameters, and Returns sets expectations. No wasted words.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the action, behavioral traits, and parameters. However, it doesn't detail error cases or prerequisites (e.g., scene must be loaded), leaving minor gaps given the complexity.

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 fully documents parameters. The description's Args section repeats schema info without adding extra meaning (e.g., format examples or edge cases). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 action ('Removes a node'), specifies the resource ('from the scene'), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it removes children too, unlike tools like 'godot_reparent_node' or 'godot_set_node_property'. It's specific and avoids tautology.

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 it (to remove nodes from scenes) and mentions it's destructive, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'godot_reparent_node' for moving nodes instead. It's helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.

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