Manage signal connections in Godot scene files by listing, adding, or removing them programmatically.
List/add/remove signal connections in .tscn files
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action: list, add, remove | |
| method | No | Target method name | |
| scenePath | Yes | Scene file path (relative to project) | |
| signalName | No | Signal name | |
| sourcePath | No | Source node path | |
| targetPath | No | Target node path | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation through 'add/remove' but does not reveal whether the .tscn file is written to disk, whether operations are idempotent, what validation occurs, or what side effects a failed operation has.
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 compact, front-loaded phrase with no redundant wording. Every word contributes: it names the operations and the resource type in minimal space.
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?
The tool handles three distinct actions with seven parameters, has no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one short phrase. It does not explain which parameters are needed per action, what list returns, whether changes persist, or how this differs from runtime signal operations.
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 each parameter. The description adds the broader context that these parameters relate to signal connections in .tscn files, but it does not clarify how action, sourcePath, targetPath, signalName, and method combine for each operation.
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 states exactly what the tool does: list/add/remove signal connections in .tscn files. It names a specific verb set and a concrete resource, and the '.tscn' qualifier distinguishes it from runtime signal tools like game_connect_signal and game_disconnect_signal.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention the sibling runtime signal tools, nor does it explain when to prefer file-based signal editing versus runtime connection/disconnection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.