godot_list_dynamic_routes

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

Annotations provide minimal safety cues (all hints are false), so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the connection requirement but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects may occur, or what the return format looks like. For a 'query' tool, this lack of transparency leaves the agent uncertain about safety and outcomes.

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 brief and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key prerequisite. No wasted words. It earns its place, though it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., separating purpose and usage). Overall it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. However, it lacks context about why this tool exists (e.g., the concept of 'dynamic routes'), expected output shape, or any examples. For a tool with sibling overlap, more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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 input schema has one optional parameter 'category' with a clear description ('Filter by category (optional)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter context, but the schema already covers the parameter's meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not enhance schema semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: query tools registered on the Godot side but not defined on the MCP side. This uses a specific verb ('查询') and a well-defined scope, distinguishing it from siblings like godot_list_instances and godot_get_context. It could have explicitly mentioned 'dynamic routes' to align directly with the tool name, which is a minor gap.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to list Godot-registered tools that MCP doesn't define. It also mentions the prerequisite that a Godot instance connection is required. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as godot_list_instances.

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