Modify a Godot project's project.godot setting by specifying section, key, and value.
Modify a project.godot setting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Setting key (e.g., "run/main_scene", "window/size/viewport_width") | |
| value | Yes | Value to set (as a string, will be written as-is) | |
| section | Yes | Section in project.godot (e.g., "application", "display", "rendering") | |
| 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 disclosure burden. 'Modify' signals mutation, but the description does not reveal whether the whole file is rewritten (risking comment/formatting loss), whether missing sections or keys are created, how the string value is interpreted beyond 'as-is', or whether conflicts arise with a running editor. These are material behaviors for a config-file mutation 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?
A single declarative sentence front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing zero filler. Every word earns its place, though the extreme brevity is what leaves the behavioral and usage gaps noted elsewhere.
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 mutation tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description omits key operational facts: whether missing sections/keys get created, whether the edit is a safe read-modify-write or a full rewrite, and how to verify the result. The obvious verification step via read_project_settings is not hinted at, leaving an agent under-equipped.
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?
The schema documents all four parameters with types, purposes, and examples (e.g., key values like 'run/main_scene'; value noted as 'written as-is'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?
The description names a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('a project.godot setting'), making the core operation unambiguous, and it is clearly separable from read_project_settings (read vs. write). However, it does not differentiate from the many other project-configuration siblings (set_main_scene, manage_autoloads, manage_input_map, manage_export_presets) that also write to project configuration.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With multiple siblings touching project configuration (read_project_settings, set_main_scene, manage_autoloads, manage_input_map, manage_export_presets), the agent gets no help deciding between this generic key/value editor and a specialized configuration tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.