Disconnect a signal connection between nodes in a running Godot game. Specify source node path, signal name, target node path, and method to remove the connection.
Disconnect a signal connection in the running game
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | Yes | Method name on the target | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the source node | |
| signalName | Yes | Name of the signal | |
| targetPath | Yes | Path to the target node |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. The verb 'disconnect' implies mutation, but the description does not disclose what happens if the connection does not exist, whether the change is reversible via game_connect_signal, whether it affects only the live session, or what failure modes are possible. This is a significant gap for a state-mutating tool.
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?
A single 8-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though slightly terse given the absence of annotations.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, this 4-required-parameter mutation tool should provide more context: error behavior for nonexistent connections, reversibility, and relationship to sibling signal tools. The description leaves these gaps unfilled, making it insufficiently complete for an agent to confidently invoke.
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 already documents all four parameters (nodePath, signalName, targetPath, method). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('disconnect'), a clear resource ('signal connection'), and a scoping qualifier ('in the running game') that distinguishes this from editor-time signal editing. Its semantics inherently separate it from siblings like game_connect_signal, game_emit_signal, game_list_signals, and game_await_signal, though it does not name them explicitly.
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 phrase 'in the running game' implies this is for runtime signal disconnection rather than static scene editing, which provides some selection context against manage_scene_signals and the game_* family. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the natural pairing with game_connect_signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.