Godot MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description adds value by clarifying that it saves to disk and handles optional 'save_as' for copies, which provides context beyond annotations. 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 purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (saving files), rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the action, parameters, and return confirmation. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on error cases or confirmation format, but it's sufficient for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description's Args section repeats this information (e.g., 'Omit for active scene'), adding minimal extra meaning. This meets the baseline score of 3 for 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('saves') and resources ('scene'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'godot_create_scene' (creation) or 'godot_list_scenes' (listing). It specifies saving to disk, which is distinct from other scene-related operations.

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 on when to use this tool (to save scenes) and includes usage guidance in the Args section (e.g., 'Omit for active scene'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for related operations, such as 'godot_create_scene' for new scenes.

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