Retrieve or update values, ranges, and colors of Godot range UI elements including ProgressBar, Slider, SpinBox, and ColorPicker.
ProgressBar/Slider/SpinBox/ColorPicker get/set
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| step | No | Step value | |
| color | No | Color {r,g,b,a} (for ColorPicker) | |
| value | No | Value (for Range nodes) | |
| action | Yes | Action: get or set | |
| maxValue | No | Maximum value | |
| minValue | No | Minimum value | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to Range/ColorPicker node |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only says 'get/set' — which merely echoes the schema's action parameter. It does not disclose what a get returns, whether set mutates live game state, or any constraints such as clamping to min/max.
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 five-word fragment with zero wasted words, and the scope is front-loaded before the action. It earns the conciseness score but stops just short of 5 because a single well-formed sentence would convey the same information with better structure.
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 tool with 7 parameters, 4 widget types, no annotations, and no output schema, this fragment is under-specified. An agent cannot tell what a get call returns, which of value/minValue/maxValue/step/color apply to each widget type, or when this specialized tool beats the generic game_get_property/game_set_property siblings.
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 seven parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal value by naming the four widget types, hinting at which params apply to which node class, but it doesn't resolve ambiguity such as whether value or color should be supplied for a given nodePath.
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 names a specific verb pair (get/set) and specific resource types (ProgressBar, Slider, SpinBox, ColorPicker), which goes beyond the tool name and gives an agent a concrete picture of scope. It reads as a terse fragment rather than a complete sentence and doesn't clarify the relationship between Range nodes and ColorPicker, but the meaning is unambiguous enough to distinguish it from siblings like game_ui_text.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes generic game_get_property/game_set_property and game_ui_control, and an agent is given no criteria to decide whether this specialized tool or the generic ones should be used, nor which widget types this tool is preferred for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.