Create or read GitHub Actions workflows to automate Godot game exports for selected platforms and engine versions.
Create/read GitHub Actions workflow for automated Godot exports
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action: create or read | |
| platforms | No | Target platforms: windows, linux, macos, web | |
| projectPath | Yes | Absolute path to Godot project | |
| godotVersion | No | Godot version (e.g. 4.3-stable) |
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 must carry behavioral disclosure; 'Create/read' signals possible mutation/retrieval but doesn't say whether create overwrites existing workflows, where the workflow file is written, or what permissions are needed. This leaves significant operational ambiguity.
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?
One short sentence that gets the core purpose across without redundancy. Slight ambiguity in 'Create/read' aside, it is efficient and front-loaded.
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 or output schema, the description leaves key context unspecified: return format for read, file overwrite behavior for create, and relationship to manage_docker_export/export_project. Not complete enough for safe invocation.
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%, so all four parameters are documented in the input schema; description adds no further parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific action pair (create/read) on a concrete resource (GitHub Actions workflow for Godot exports), which clearly separates it from actual export tools like export_project and manage_docker_export.
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?
Description offers no guidance on when to choose create vs read, or when to prefer manage_docker_export/export_project. The 'for automated Godot exports' phrase implies CI context but no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.