Retrieve comprehensive information about any Godot node: its class, properties, signals, methods, and children. Useful for inspecting node structure and data.
Get node info: class, properties, signals, methods, children
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the node (e.g., "/root/Player") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns class, properties, signals, methods, and children, and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the return format, whether children are returned recursively, or error behavior for invalid node paths.
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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the operation and uses a comma-separated list to enumerate the return categories. There is no filler or redundant information.
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 one-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description is largely complete: the input is fully documented in the schema, and the return categories are explicitly listed. The lack of an output schema leaves minor gaps around the exact return structure, but the core information needed to invoke the tool is present.
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 coverage is 100%, and the nodePath parameter is already described in the schema with an example. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'node info', and it enumerates the specific contents: class, properties, signals, methods, children. This helps distinguish it from more narrowly focused siblings like game_get_property or game_list_signals, though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies 'use this when you need node info', but it does not mention when to prefer game_get_property, game_get_scene_tree, or game_list_signals instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.