Skip to main content
Glama

validation

Run headless Godot tests, analyze runtime errors, validate scenes/scripts/resources, and import assets. Execute a full verification workflow or individual checks on demand.

Instructions

运行验证、分析错误、验证项目/脚本、导入资源。一键 headless 运行 + 错误分析,或按需单项检查。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sceneNo可选场景文件路径(run_and_verify)
scopeNo验证范围(verify_delivery 必填): scene/script/full。其他 action 忽略
actionYes操作类型
outputNoGodot 运行时输出全文(analyze_error)
scriptsNo要验证的脚本路径数组(相对项目)。省略则扫描全部 .gd 文件
timeoutNo超时秒数(默认 20)
directoryNo扫描目录(相对项目,如 "assets/ui")
recursiveNo递归扫描子目录(默认 true)
extensionsNo导入文件扩展名(默认常见图片/音频/字体类型)
godot_pathNo覆盖 Godot 二进制路径(可选,优先于项目配置和环境变量)
scene_pathNo场景路径(scope=scene,相对项目,verify_delivery)
script_pathNo脚本路径(scope=script,相对项目,verify_delivery)
capture_treeNo同时捕获场景树快照(默认 false)
check_scenesNo验证场景文件结构(默认 true)
project_pathNoGodot 项目目录路径(可选,默认使用 GODOT_PROJECT_PATH 环境变量或当前目录)
check_scriptsNo检查断裂脚本引用(默认 true)
exclude_pathsNo排除的目录路径(相对项目根)。默认排除:.godot, .import
check_resourcesNo检查缺失资源文件(默认 true)
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds context like 'headless run' and 'import resources', which implies side effects, but it does not disclose what exactly gets modified or any other behavioral traits such as file writes or potential conflicts. No contradiction with annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads capabilities and clearly distinguishes one-click versus individual actions. No filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool has 12 distinct actions and 18 parameters, but the description only mentions a subset (validation, error analysis, import). It does not cover actions like 'assert', 'stress', 'export_build', or 'verify_delivery'. The schema provides details, but the description lacks a full overview needed for a complex multi-action tool.

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 for all 18 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, merely summarizing the action types at a high level.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states multiple specific actions (run validation, analyze errors, validate project/scripts, import resources) with a clear resource scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'project' or 'script' that might overlap in validation tasks.

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 usage contexts such as 'one-click headless run + error analysis' or 'on-demand individual checks', giving some guidance. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/wgt19861219/godot-mcp-enhanced'

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