Skip to main content
Glama
wangdiandao

godot-devtool

by wangdiandao
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v3.2.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: returning the tool catalog, retrieving the Godot version, and listing projects. There is no overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (get_capabilities, get_godot_version, list_projects).

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the set is small but not unreasonable for a focused development tool. It could be more comprehensive but feels appropriate for a minimal server.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover basic information retrieval (version, project listing) but lack actions like running or exporting projects. Notable gaps exist for a development tool server.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 4 of 4 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., invalid directory), performance, or what qualifies as a Godot project. Only the basic action is stated.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single concise sentence with no waste, but it is too short and lacks sufficient information for effective tool usage. It is appropriately concise but under-specified.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description fails to inform about return format (list of paths? names?), error behavior, or what defines a Godot project. Significant completeness gaps persist.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'list projects', so it meets baseline but offers no added value.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool lists Godot projects in a directory, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings which are about capabilities and version.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No context provided on prerequisites or constraints.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the default lightweight output and optional filtering, but does not state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or describe the output format beyond 'catalog'. The behavioral implications of the 'workflow' parameter (returning a predefined set) are not explained.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single sentence of about 25 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is brief. It does not describe the structure of the returned catalog (e.g., array of tool objects with fields), nor does it clarify that the tool is a safe introspection operation. While adequate for a simple tool, it lacks detail needed by an agent to fully understand the output and side effects.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already defines parameters clearly. The description adds value by summarizing filter types and providing extra guidance for the 'workflow' parameter ('Use this instead of requesting all schemas'). However, it does not detail other parameter specifics beyond what the schema provides.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool returns a 'lightweight godot-devtool tool catalog' with filtering options by route group, transport, risk level, tool name, or query. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_godot_version' (version info) and 'list_projects' (project listing).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies the tool is for exploring available tools/capabilities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not say 'Use this to discover available tools; use get_godot_version for version info.' The guidance is implicit but not explicit.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It correctly implies read-only behavior but adds no extra context. For a simple getter, it is adequate but not rich.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Single sentence, directly to the point, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a version-check tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is complete enough. It could mention return type, but not required.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    No parameters exist, so schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add param info.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'installed Godot version'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_capabilities and list_projects, which are focused on different resources.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is simple, no context is given about typical use cases or prerequisites.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

godot-devtool MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

godot-devtool MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wangdiandao/godot-devtool'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server