Create or read Godot shader source code files (.gdshader) with support for spatial, canvas_item, particles, and sky types.
Create or read .gdshader files
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action: create or read | |
| source | No | Shader source code (for create) | |
| shaderPath | Yes | Shader file path (relative to project) | |
| shaderType | No | Type: spatial, canvas_item, particles, sky | |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create or read' conveys the basic operation types, but it does not disclose important behaviors such as whether create overwrites existing files, whether directories are created, if any validation happens, or what the read operation returns. This is a significant gap for a mutation-capable 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler and the key actions front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is so minimal that it misses opportunities to include actionable guidance without becoming verbose.
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?
This tool has five parameters, three required, and supports two distinct actions with different parameter needs, yet there is no output schema or annotation coverage. The description fails to explain per-action requirements, return formats, side effects, or error conditions, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke create vs read without additional inference.
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 five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the high-level actions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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-resource pairing ('Create or read .gdshader files') and distinguishes this tool from generic file tools like read_file/write_file by targeting shader files specifically. However, it does not elaborate on the two actions or how this relates to other shader-related siblings such as game_visual_shader.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_file, write_file, create_script, or game_visual_shader. There is no mention of when to choose manage_shader or when to avoid it, leaving the agent to rely on the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.