Run a Godot project from a specified path, optionally with a specific scene, and capture its output.
Run the Godot project and capture output
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene | No | Optional: Specific scene to run | |
| 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, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. 'Capture output' hints at process management, but the description does not explain blocking behavior, process lifecycle, side effects, or how output is returned or accessed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and intended outcome efficiently.
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?
Despite the simple schema, running a project is a stateful operation with lifecycle implications, and there is no output schema or annotations to carry the missing details. The description leaves out expected behavior after launch, output destination/format, and interaction with stop_project.
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 projectPath and the optional scene. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters affect execution.
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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Run the Godot project') and adds 'capture output,' which distinguishes it from siblings like launch_editor, export_project, and stop_project. An agent can tell what this tool does without inspecting the schema.
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 explicit or implied guidance about when to choose run_project over related tools such as launch_editor, stop_project, or game_change_scene. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.