Godot MCP Server

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

Annotations cover basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds valuable context: it specifies that values must be 'JSON-serialisable Godot variants', mentions common property keys, and clarifies the optional scene_path defaults to 'active scene'. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples), front-loaded purpose statement, and zero wasted sentences. Examples are directly tied to usage scenarios, making every element earn its place efficiently.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the action, parameters, return values, and provides examples. However, it could mention error cases (e.g., invalid node paths) or side effects, leaving minor gaps in contextual coverage.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by listing common property keys and clarifying the scene_path default, but it doesn't provide deep semantic insights beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., node_path format, properties as key/value pairs).

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 ('Sets one or more properties') on a specific resource ('on an existing node'), distinguishing it from siblings like godot_add_node (creates new nodes) and godot_remove_node (deletes nodes). The verb 'Sets' is precise and the resource 'existing node' is well-defined.

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 through examples ('Move the Player to position', 'Hide the HUD node'), which implicitly guides when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. godot_add_node for new nodes) or named alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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