Godot MCP Toolkit

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_server_info and get_capabilities overlap heavily in scope. Additionally, add_node vs load_sprite vs create_ui_node create ambiguity around which node-creation tool to use, though descriptions partially clarify.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, such as list_scenes, create_project, and inspect_node. There are no deviations or mixed conventions, making the naming highly predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 43 tools, the server is substantially over the recommended 3-15 range. While the domain is broad, the sheer number creates a heavy cognitive load and suggests insufficient consolidation of related operations.
Completeness3/5
The toolkit covers core Godot workflows like scene editing, scripting, running, and testing, but lacks basic delete operations for files, scenes, and projects. This leaves notable gaps in lifecycle management, especially since create and duplicate operations exist without corresponding removals.
Average 3.1/5 across 43 of 43 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and runtime behavior. It mentions saving a PNG, but does not clarify whether the render is offscreen, whether the project must be running, how output paths are resolved, or what happens if the scene fails to load. The 'controlled viewport' phrase hints at non-interactive rendering but lacks detail.
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 sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical details, making it under-specification rather than well-structured conciseness. The sentence order is logical but leaves too much unsaid.
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?
The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining usage. It only covers the basic purpose and output format, omitting return values, error cases, output path default behavior, and interaction with the Godot project. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only projectPath has a description). The description does not explain the meaning of width, height, scenePath, or outputPath beyond generic terms like 'viewport' and 'PNG'. It provides no additional detail about parameter defaults or relationships, leaving the agent to infer from names.
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 the action ('Render a scene') and the outcome ('save a PNG inside the project'), which matches the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_scene_tree or create_scene by focusing on image capture rather than scene editing or inspection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other rendering or screenshot tools. There are no prerequisites, no mention of required project state, and no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions a 'safe starter template' but does not detail what the template contains, whether overwrite behavior is controlled by parameter, or the side effects of creating a file. This is a significant gap for a 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words or phrases. It is concise and to the point, earning full marks for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely sparse. It omits essential information about required parameters, behavior, and use cases, making it inadequate for an agent to use safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only projectPath is described in the schema). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, failing to mention scriptPath, body, extends, or overwrite. It does not compensate for the high number of undocumented parameters.
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 the tool creates a GDScript file with a specific template, which differentiates it from generic file creation tools like write_file. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish from siblings such as attach_script, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_file or attach_script. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'lightweight' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how it affects the scene. The lack of any mention of return values or side effects leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse. While it is sparse, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it misses opportunities to embed needed context.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the collected counters include, what the return format is, or what the 'frames' parameter controls. For a profiling tool, this incomplete context could lead to misuse or incorrect expectations, making it insufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only projectPath is described). The description 'Collect lightweight frame and memory counters for a scene' does not clarify the meaning of 'frames' (e.g., number of frames to sample) or 'scenePath' (the target scene). It fails to compensate for the schema gaps, leaving parameter semantics largely unexplained.
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 states a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('frame and memory counters for a scene'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It is specific enough to distinguish from other tools like capture_screenshot or get_game_context, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings. The purpose is clear, but could mention that it profiles performance rather than just collecting counters.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, scenarios, or exclusions. The description is purely a functional statement without any usage direction, leaving the agent to infer when profiling is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Stop' implies a potentially destructive or state-changing action, but the description does not mention side effects, whether it kills the process, requires specific permissions, or is reversible. It adds almost no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, but conciseness itself is appropriate. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and object, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5 because some added details about parameters would improve it without hurting conciseness.
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?
For a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: what constitutes a 'background run,' how to identify which run to stop (runId vs projectPath), and what happens after stopping. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail is needed for reliable invocation, so this is clearly below the minimum viable completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (runId, projectPath) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain either parameter, so the agent has no idea what to pass or which one is required. This is a complete gap in parameter semantics.
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 a specific action: 'Stop a background Godot run.' The verb 'stop' and resource 'background Godot run' are clear, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'run_project' which starts runs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other possible stop-like tools, so it doesn't earn a 5.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply says 'Stop a background Godot run,' which implies use when a run is in the background, but there are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of alternate tools. This is minimal guidance at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the tool reads recursively, what constitutes a 'project', the return format, or any side effects. The behavior is minimally implied but not explicitly described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is slightly under-specified, which costs a point in structure since it prioritizes brevity over necessary detail.
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?
The tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should clarify return values and parameter constraints. It fails to do so: no mention of output shape, the meaning of maxDepth, or any behavioral details, making it an incomplete description for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: 'root' has a description, but 'maxDepth' is undocumented in both schema and description. The tool description adds no parameter information, leaving the meaning and effect of maxDepth unclear, especially important given it controls recursion depth.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('Godot projects') and scoping ('below a directory'), making the core purpose distinguishable from siblings like list_files. It doesn't explicitly state how projects are identified (e.g., by project.godot), but it is reasonably clear for the target domain.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_project or list_files. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add a Sprite2D' implies a mutation, but it does not describe side effects such as whether the scene is saved, whether existing nodes are affected, error behavior, or whether it requires an active project. The description is too sparse to be behaviorally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, and contains no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, though the terseness sacrifices potentially important context that would improve usability.
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?
The tool has five parameters, two required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the basic purpose and fails to address side effects, return values, or the context in which this tool should be used. For a mutation tool with this complexity, the description is incomplete and could lead to incorrect invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only projectPath has a description), and the tool description adds minimal value beyond that. It clarifies that texturePath should be project-relative, which is helpful, but it does not explain scenePath, parentPath, or nodeName. Given the low schema coverage, the description insufficiently compensates for the missing parameter semantics.
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 the action ('Add a Sprite2D') and the key constraint ('using a project-relative texture path'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like add_node. However, it does not explicitly mention the target scene or that it operates on a scene tree, leaving slight ambiguity about the context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., project must be open, scene must exist), and no exclusions. It only states what it does without contextualizing when it is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions UTF-8 encoding, which is a useful detail, but it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, if directories are auto-created, or any error behavior. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but it could beneficially include more behavioral details without becoming verbose.
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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description alone must provide a complete picture. It only states the primary action, omitting side effects, return values, path validation, and interactions with project structure. This is inadequate for a tool with four parameters and potential destructive behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'projectPath' has a description). The description does not compensate by explaining 'path' or 'content'. While 'path' and 'content' are self-explanatory, the absence of any parameter context means the agent must infer semantics, and the default behavior of 'createDirectories' is only in the schema.
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 the action ('Write') and the resource ('a UTF-8 text file') with a specific location ('inside a Godot project'). It distinguishes from 'read_file' but does not explicitly differentiate from 'create_script' or other write-related tools.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of overwriting files, creating scripts via 'create_script', or any prerequisites like an open project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Find text references' without explaining whether it is read-only, what file types are scanned, how matching works, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No fluff or unnecessary details.
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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain more about return values, search scope, and parameter behavior. It does not cover these, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (projectPath). The tool description adds meaning to resourcePath by clarifying it is 'project-relative', but it does not explain maxResults or its role in limiting output. The description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('text references to a project-relative resource path'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_project, but the scope is clear enough to understand what it does.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to other search-related tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'captured output' but does not explain whether reading clears the buffer, whether it blocks, or how parameters like clear or tailLines affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no extraneous words, front-loading the core action. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity.
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?
With four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks necessary details on return format, parameter usage, and side effects, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain any of the four parameters. The agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 action (Read) and target (captured output from a background Godot run), distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture_screenshot or get_server_info.
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; no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the name and the existence of run_project/stop_project siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions launching and returning a process id, but does not disclose whether the process runs in the background, whether it blocks, what happens if the editor is already running, or what failure modes exist.
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 with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description omits critical operational details like whether the call is synchronous, whether a display/GUI is required, and error behavior. This is insufficient for reliable use in an agent context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (projectPath is documented, godotBinary is not). The tool description does not explain either parameter or compensate for the undocumented godotBinary parameter, so the semantic gap remains.
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 uses the specific verb 'Launch' with the resource 'Godot editor' and states it returns a process id, making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like run_project, which could also be considered for launching a project.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_project or create_project. The only contextual hint is the projectPath default, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a basic list operation, omitting whether the operation is read-only, what counts as a 'resource', how filtering behaves with multiple extensions, or what the return format looks like. The lack of such context is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and structurally sound.
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, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how it differs from similar tools like list_files. It does neither. The optional parameters (path, extensions) lack contextual explanation. For a relatively simple tool, this is under-specified but not absolutely minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only projectPath is described). The description adds meaning for extensions via 'filtered by extension', but says nothing about path or projectPath semantics beyond the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate more, but it only partially does.
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 the action (list) and resource (project resources) with a filter (by extension). It is not a tautology and gives a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_files or list_scenes, which also list project-related items.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_files, list_scenes, and search_project overlap conceptually, but the description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred. This leaves the agent without a basis for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral insight. It states the target type but omits any details about side effects, requirements, or error behavior, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutation operation.
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?
A single, focused sentence that states the action and object clearly. It is concise and free of unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is drastically under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations. It lacks critical information about parameter meanings, required setup, expected results, and failure modes, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no parameter explanations, and the schema is nearly empty (only projectPath has a description). The agent is left to infer the meaning of x, y, sourceId, atlasX, atlasY, etc., which is insufficient.
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 identifies the action ('set'), the target resource ('TileMap or TileMapLayer cell'), and the mechanism (Godot's native API), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like inspect_tilemaps or set_node_property.
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 usage context is provided; the description doesn't mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like set_node_property, or any prerequisites such as the scene being open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'create an empty' resource but does not explain potential side effects, whether an existing animation is overwritten, dependencies on nodePath, or any required scene setup. The behavior remains opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, non-redundant sentence that is easy to scan. It avoids fluff, but it is somewhat under-specified given the tool's five parameters. Still, it is concise and front-loaded.
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?
This is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain prerequisites (e.g., existing AnimationPlayer), return values, or how length and nodePath affect the creation. Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only projectPath has a description). The tool description adds no parameter details, so the agent must rely on parameter names. Ambiguities like nodePath default '.' and length default 1 are not explained, and the purpose of scenePath vs projectPath is unclear.
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 action (create), the resource type (empty AnimationPlayer animation resource), and the target context (in a scene). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_scene (creates scene) and inspect_animation_players (inspects).
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an existing AnimationPlayer node. It does not mention exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 creating a project.godot file but omits critical side effects: it doesn't state that createMainScene defaults to true, whether existing files are overwritten, where the project is created by default, or whether additional files are generated. The term 'minimal' is vague and could mislead.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's parameter richness.
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?
For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, the meaning of a 'minimal' project, or the effects of the parameters. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only projectPath has a description). The tool description provides no explanation of the 'name', 'renderer', or 'createMainScene' parameters, nor does it clarify how they influence the created project. It adds marginal value beyond the schema and does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 action ('Create') and the resource ('minimal Godot 4 project'), with a specific detail (project.godot file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_scene and create_script, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 is given about when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, whether it should be used before other actions, or situations where a full project template might be preferred. The intended use must be inferred from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create and save' but does not explain side effects such as overwriting existing scenes, directory creation, or whether a project must be selected. This is a significant gap for a 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that is perfectly sized for the function. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool is simple but has no output schema and no annotations. The description omits critical context such as overwrite behavior, default root type implications, and the meaning of 'minimal' scene. The schema partially fills gaps but the description itself is inadequate for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters at all. With only 25% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented rootName, rootType, and scenePath semantics, which remain ambiguous beyond their names.
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 verb ('Create and save') and the specific resource ('minimal Godot scene'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_script or create_ui_node, which target different artifacts.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It says 'Read,' indicating a non-mutating operation, but it doesn't explain what 'selected settings' means, whether it returns raw file contents or parsed data, or any error conditions. This leaves significant ambiguity about behavior.
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 terse sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and the resource. There are no wasted words; it is efficient and structurally sound.
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?
The description omits return value details, the scope of 'selected settings,' and the tool's relationship to other project-related tools. With no output schema or annotations to compensate, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand what to expect.
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 only parameter, projectPath, is fully described in the schema with default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 a read operation targeting 'project.godot metadata and selected settings.' It distinguishes the resource from sibling tools like get_godot_version or list_projects, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_project_setting or check_project. It only describes what the tool does, without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing resources, error cases, or whether the UID is returned directly or wrapped in a response object, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is so brief that it omits potentially useful context, though this is more a completeness than conciseness issue.
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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the UID is used, or any operational context. The simple one-liner is insufficient for an agent to use the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50%: projectPath is described, but the required resourcePath has no description. The tool description does not clarify the meaning or format of resourcePath, nor does it explain how projectPath relates to the operation. It fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
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 'Read a resource UID using Godot's resource database' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource, and indicates the underlying mechanism. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_project_uids or list_resources, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions. The description simply states the function without contextualizing its place among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only inspection but does not disclose what data is returned, whether it recursively inspects nested nodes, or whether any side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from more detail, but as far as structure and brevity it is appropriate for a tool of this narrow scope.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the tool's behavior and return value, but it does not. At minimum, it could indicate what kind of inspection results are returned, making the description incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50% (scenePath is undocumented), and the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'in a scene' but does not map this to scenePath or explain the optional projectPath beyond what the schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names exact resource types ('TileMap and TileMapLayer nodes'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like inspect_scene_tree and inspect_node by narrowing the scope to tilemap-specific nodes.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_node or inspect_scene_tree. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention that the removal is saved, but it omits details about error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., scene must be loaded), or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating tool.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and result. It contains no fluff or redundant information.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover the tool's operation comprehensively. It only gives a high-level action without addressing parameter specifics, failure modes, or the exact impact of the save. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies and persists scene data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not explain the required parameters (scenePath, nodePath). The optional projectPath is described in the schema, but the core parameters remain undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no parameter meaning, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('a node from a scene'), and adds the side effect 'and save it'. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_node (inverse) and inspect_node (read-only). It is succinct and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Users must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list, which is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool modifies a scene file, how the node is inserted relative to parentPath, or any side effects or error conditions. The one-sentence description leaves the tool's behavior opaque.
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, direct sentence with no padding. It front-loads the core purpose without wasting words.
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 the tool has six parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It lacks any information about return values, workflow context, how properties should be structured, or what happens after the node is added. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is very low (17%), so the description must compensate. It hints at 'optional layout properties' possibly referring to the 'properties' parameter but does not explain the meaning of nodeName, nodeType, parentPath, or scenePath. The tool description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema shows.
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 action ('Add'), the resource type ('Control-derived UI node'), and the target ('to a scene'). It differentiates from sibling tools like add_node by specifying the UI-specific node type and optional layout properties.
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 is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like add_node. The description only states what the tool does without any usage context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a 'compact project graph' is built, without explaining what that entails (e.g., scanning files, aggregation, potential cost). The word 'compact' hints at limiting size but does not detail behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose clearly and efficiently.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves major gaps: the nature of the returned graph, whether it is a read-only operation, and how parameters influence behavior. While the tool appears simple, the description is too sparse to give an AI sufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only projectPath has a description). The tool description does not mention any parameters or how they affect the output, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions of maxFiles and includeScripts.
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 primary action ('Build') and the deliverable ('compact project graph'), with an explicit purpose ('for AI-assisted game understanding'). This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on specific game object operations.
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 phrase 'for AI-assisted game understanding' implies a general use case, but there are no explicit guidelines about when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_scene_tree or list_files. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not mention whether there are side effects, what specific runtime information is included, or any other behavioral details beyond the basic function.
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, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complex details.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the return value contains. It only vaguely says 'capabilities and runtime information' without specifying the structure or content. This leaves the agent uncertain about the exact output, especially given the nearby 'get_capabilities' tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The schema trivially covers all parameters (none), and the description adds no missing semantics, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.
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 states a specific action ('Return') and a resource ('server capabilities and runtime information'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling 'get_capabilities', which likely returns similar information, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_capabilities or get_godot_version. The description simply states what it does without any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, the description does not clarify whether the scene must be loaded, what happens for invalid paths, or whether it returns a full property dump. This is minimal and leaves safety/behavior assumptions unspecified.
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 entire description is one sentence with no filler, achieving maximum conciseness and front-loading the core action.
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?
For a tool that reads node properties, the description omits information about return format, requirements for scene loading, error handling, and the relationship between the two path parameters. The lack of an output schema makes this absence more significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only 33% parameter coverage (projectPath is described, while nodePath and scenePath are not). The description adds no meaning about how nodePath relates to scenePath or how the node is located, leaving the agent to infer from names.
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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'a node's serializable Inspector properties,' clearly distinguishing it from mutation tools like set_node_property and structural tools like inspect_scene_tree.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as inspect_scene_tree or set_node_property, and no exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals the side effect of saving the scene, which is useful. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose permission requirements, error behavior (e.g., invalid property paths), reversibility, or impact on unsaved changes.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise for the tool's straightforward action.
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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter documentation, the description is too terse. It omits important operational context such as how scenes are referenced, what 'serializable' implies for accepted values, and whether the operation is reversible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only projectPath is documented). The description adds little beyond the parameter names, mentioning 'serializable' but not explaining how to specify node paths, property names, or valid value types.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a serializable node property'), and also notes the scene is saved. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_node, remove_node, and inspect_node.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state whether it should be used for modifying existing nodes only, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the basic action (injecting input) but does not explain side effects, error conditions, or runtime requirements (e.g., whether a scene must already be running headlessly, what happens if the injection fails). There is no mention of return values or output, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.
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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is well front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.
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?
Despite having 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only the barest functional overview. It does not explain essential context such as the relationship between scenePath and a running scene, the meaning of durationFrames, or the distinction between key and mouse_button events. The tool would be difficult to invoke correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14% (only projectPath is described), so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'keyboard or mouse input event', which maps to the eventType parameter, but fails to explain keycode, buttonIndex, pressed, durationFrames, or scenePath. These parameters remain semantically opaque, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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's function: 'Inject a keyboard or mouse input event while a scene runs headlessly.' It uses a specific verb ('inject'), names the resource ('keyboard or mouse input event'), and provides a context ('while a scene runs headlessly'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_automation_test or capture_screenshot, which have different purposes.
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?
The description implies usage during a headless scene run but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as a scene currently running, nor does it compare to related tools like run_automation_test or run_project. The user is left to infer the intended automation/testing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of saving, but does not explain what happens if the node already exists, whether properties are merged or overwritten, or what the return value/error behavior is. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and well-structured, though the brevity edges toward under-specification for a tool with six parameters; adding one more sentence of context would not hurt conciseness.
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 annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description is incomplete. It conveys the core action but omits prerequisites, dependency on scene/project state, side-effect nuances beyond saving, and any guidance on parameters. It is minimally viable but not safe for autonomous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, with only projectPath described. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; required parameters scenePath, nodeType, and nodeName are left to be inferred from their names, and properties/parentPath are not explained at all.
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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a node to a scene'), and the 'save it' clause adds persistence scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_ui_node, create_scene, remove_node, and set_node_property.
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 adding nodes to existing scenes and saving, which gives some context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like create_ui_node or create_scene, and no prerequisites such as requiring an open project or scene.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or what the diagnostics format looks like. It only says it runs a checker and returns results, leaving safety and behavior unclear.
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 that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It effectively conveys the core action and result in minimal space.
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 is simple, but without annotations or an output schema, the description should explain more about what 'diagnostics' are and any context like project selection. It is adequate as a minimum but lacks depth for an agent to fully anticipate behavior and interpretation of results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only projectPath is described). The description does not mention any of the parameters, so scriptPath and timeoutMs semantics must be inferred. It does not compensate for the low coverage or clarify timeout behavior.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and a clear resource ('Godot's script checker') with a defined outcome ('return diagnostics'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_project (project-level) and create_script (creation).
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 such as check_project or other diagnostic tools. It simply states the action without any contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it reveals nothing about side effects, whether the operation is destructive, or if a running Godot instance is required. 'Refresh' implies mutation, yet no details on reversibility or impact are given.
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, concise sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the core action and target without any redundancy.
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?
Despite having only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as preconditions, effects on the project, or what 'refresh' entails. Without annotations, the description is too thin to be considered complete for a mutation-like operation.
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%, and the sole parameter projectPath is well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('refresh') and resource ('resource UIDs for a project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_uid. The scope is explicit, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what is returned (e.g., list of animations or properties), whether it reads from the scene file or live scene, or any limitations. This is minimal behavioral transparency.
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 concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary words are present.
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?
This is a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, but the description is still too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, return format, and usage context, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool. Given the low complexity, more detail is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with only projectPath having a description. The tool description does not explain the required scenePath parameter, its format, or how it relates to the operation. Since the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, it fails to compensate for the gap.
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 inspects AnimationPlayer nodes and animation names, using a specific verb ('Inspect') with a concrete resource. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like inspect_node and inspect_scene_tree by specializing in AnimationPlayer nodes.
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 when the agent needs to inspect AnimationPlayer nodes or animation names, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like inspect_node. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, but the specialized purpose provides some guidance.
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 carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context about the tool returning project-relative paths and implying safety, but it does not explicitly state read-only nature, side effects, return format, or behavior with directories/hidden files. The 'safe' hint is useful but insufficient for full transparency.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetitive content.
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 the tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is too sparse to give a complete picture. It lacks any mention of return values, recursion behavior, or how to specify file extensions, making it insufficient for reliable invocation without further schema introspection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only projectPath has a description). The tool description's mention of 'project-relative paths' sheds some light on the path parameter, but it does not clarify recursive, extensions, maxResults, or how projectPath interacts. The description does not compensate enough for the low schema coverage.
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's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('project files'). The qualifier 'safe, project-relative paths' adds a distinguishing feature that helps differentiate it from sibling listing tools like list_resources or list_scenes.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_file or list_resources. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationship to other tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds that the search is limited to UTF-8 files and supports literal or regex patterns, but omits crucial details such as return format, recursion depth, case sensitivity, or handling of multiple matches. The description is too sparse to set accurate expectations.
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, concise sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.
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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not mention what the search returns (e.g., file paths with line numbers), how to limit scope, or any constraints like maximum results. A more complete description would include at least a summary of return values and usage hints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 17% (only projectPath has a description). The description adds some meaning by indicating that the 'pattern' can be literal or regex, which maps to the 'regex' parameter, but it does not explain 'path', 'extensions', or 'maxResults'. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.
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's function: searching UTF-8 project files for a literal or regular expression pattern. The verb 'search' is specific, the resource 'UTF-8 project files' is defined, and the pattern types are mentioned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file or list_files.
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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to find a pattern across project files. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., read_file for a known file) or exclusions. The description does not state scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'copy' without detailing what happens on conflict, whether dependencies are copied, if the operation is reversible, or what the return value is. This is a significant transparency gap for a 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and target, making it immediately parseable.
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 the low schema coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about the operation's behavior. It lacks essential details such as overwrite semantics, whether the copied scene is independent, and error conditions, making the tool less predictable.
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?
The description adds meaning to sourcePath and destinationPath by qualifying them as 'project-relative .tscn paths', which the schema does not provide. This is crucial for correct invocation, though projectPath's semantics are already covered in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate there.
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 uses a specific verb ('copy') and clearly states the resource ('a scene') and target ('another project-relative .tscn path'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_scene or save_scene. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_scene or save_scene. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
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 carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only listing operation, but adds little beyond the name—no mention of recursion behavior, path handling, or output format. The phrase 'all .tscn scenes' is informative but minimal.
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?
A single clear sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits parameter semantics and return behavior. It is adequate but not complete, especially given the undocumented 'path' parameter and lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: projectPath has a description, but path has none. The description does not mention or explain the path parameter, nor how projectPath overrides it, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource type (.tscn scenes) and scope ('in a project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files or list_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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_files or list_resources. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope limitations, or when this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies UTF-8 encoding and project scope, but omits details about return values, error handling (e.g., file not found), or side effects, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 short sentence contains only relevant information, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple file read, the description covers the core purpose but lacks expected return value and error behavior. The optional projectPath is documented in the schema, but the required path remains ambiguous. No output schema exists, so the description should be clearer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes projectPath but not the required path parameter. The tool description does not explain how to format path or its relation to projectPath, so additional meaning beyond the schema is minimal. Coverage is 50% and the description does not compensate.
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 reads a UTF-8 text file within a Godot project, using a specific verb ('read') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like write_file (which writes) and load_sprite (which loads sprite resources).
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies file reading but does not mention relationships to list_files or other file operations, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only the core mutation but omits side effects (e.g., scene file modification), prerequisites (script existence), and error behavior. This is minimal for a 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it maximally concise.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only the basic operation. It omits return values, failure modes, and side effects, leaving the agent underinformed for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only projectPath documented). The description adds 'project-relative' which clarifies scriptPath, but scenePath and nodePath remain self-explanatory yet undocumented. This is insufficient compensation for low coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'attach' with a clear resource ('project-relative GDScript') and target ('scene node'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_script or analyze_script.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The action is clearly implied: use when you need to attach an existing script to a scene node. No siblings perform this exact operation, so explicit alternatives aren't needed, but no exclusion or contextual guidance is provided.
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?
The description discloses the headless editor mode and diagnostic return, but lacks detail on side effects, whether it modifies project state, or what specific diagnostics are included. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the essential action and result without any unnecessary words. It earns its place perfectly.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and usage context, but it only offers the vague 'parser/runtime diagnostics.' It is incomplete for a tool that executes a headless Godot process, lacking details on parameters, side effects, and output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (projectPath has a description, timeoutMs does not). The tool description adds no parameter information whatsoever, failing to compensate for the missing timeoutMs description or clarify how parameters affect behavior.
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 action ('Run Godot in headless editor mode') and the output ('return parser/runtime diagnostics'). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like run_project or launch_editor.
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 for checking project diagnostics but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the decision to the agent.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-modifying nature ('without modifying'), which is a key behavioral trait. But it does not mention potential issues like cycles, depth limits, or what the returned data looks like.
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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, and there is no redundant information.
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?
The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what the inspection returns. For an agent to use the result, it needs to know the format or structure of the returned scene tree data. The description is minimal and leaves this entirely unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only projectPath is described). The tool description does not explain scenePath or maxDepth, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the name and context. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.
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 a specific verb ('inspect'), a resource ('scene tree'), and a scope ('recursively' and 'without modifying'). This distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_node (single node) and modifying tools like add_node/remove_node.
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 phrase 'recursively' implies using this tool when a full hierarchy is needed, and 'without modifying' implies a read-only context. However, there is no explicit comparison with alternatives like inspect_node or any 'when to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'headless mode' and provides no details about output, side effects, required setup, or how test results are returned. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for an automation tool.
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, efficient sentence with no superfluous words. Every part contributes to the meaning.
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?
With no output schema and only a minimal description, the tool's return values and how to obtain test results are unknown. It also does not mention any prerequisites or side effects. The description leaves too much context unaddressed for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only projectPath has a description). The description adds 'project-relative' which clarifies testPath, but timeoutMs remains without explanation. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for most parameters.
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 uses a specific verb 'Run' with a clear resource 'project-relative GDScript test' and qualifier 'in headless mode', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_project. It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: run a GDScript test headlessly. It implies the tool is for automated testing rather than launching the full project, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are stated, but the intended use case is evident.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two key behaviors: the project runs in the background (non-blocking) and stdout/stderr are captured. However, it omits critical details such as how to access the captured output, whether the process can be managed or stopped, and any side effects like killing an existing run. This is a meaningful disclosure but still incomplete.
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, efficient sentence: 'Run a Godot project in the background and capture stdout/stderr.' It is front-loaded with the primary action, contains no redundant words, and every word adds value.
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?
With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't mention how to retrieve the captured output (via get_debug_output), how to stop the project (via stop_project), or what the tool returns (e.g., process ID, status). The existence of many project-management siblings underscores the need for more contextual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with scene and projectPath having descriptions but headless and godotBinary being undocumented. The description does not mention any parameters, so it fails to compensate for the gap. It does not explain the purpose of headless mode or the godotBinary field, leaving the agent without guidance for these parameters.
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's purpose: 'Run a Godot project in the background and capture stdout/stderr.' It uses a specific verb ('Run'), specifies the resource ('Godot project'), and adds unique scope ('in the background and capture stdout/stderr') that distinguishes it from siblings like launch_editor (which opens the editor) and check_project (which analyzes).
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 when to use this tool (when you need to run a project and capture its output), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_debug_output for retrieving the captured output or stop_project for halting a running project. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.
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 must disclose behavior on its own. It discloses a key trait: 'Load and re-save' indicates a file-mutating operation. However, it omits important details such as whether the original file is overwritten, if any error handling or rollback occurs, or what the return value looks like on success or failure.
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 only 10 words, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Each word contributes to understanding; there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
This tool mutates a file, has no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter (scenePath). The description only covers high-level behavior. Missing context includes return values, error behavior, overwrite semantics, required project state, and parameter formats—all essential for reliable use in an agentic workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes only projectPath; scenePath has no description (50% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-level information. An agent cannot determine whether scenePath should be an absolute path, relative path, or resource UID, nor can it understand the relationship between scenePath and projectPath beyond what the schema already states.
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 a specific action: 'Load and re-save a scene to validate its serialization.' It names the resource (scene), the verbs (load and re-save), and a unique purpose (validating serialization), which distinguishes it from related tools like duplicate_scene or create_scene.
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 a use case (validation of serialization) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or state any preconditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability only from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a persistent write to the project.godot file, nor does it mention any prerequisites like an open project or potential side effects.
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?
A single sentence clearly communicates the tool's purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded and every word is meaningful.
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?
For a simple mutating tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal but adequate to identify the purpose. It lacks behavioral details like return values or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity, it covers the core intent.
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 description's 'section/key notation' clarifies the expected format for the 'setting' parameter, but the schema already provides examples. The 'value' parameter has no description at all, so the tool description adds only marginal 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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'project.godot setting', with a specific notation convention. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_node_property by targeting the project settings file directly.
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 when a project.godot setting needs to be changed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternative is mentioned, though the tool's uniqueness makes usage somewhat self-evident.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'reads' a version, implying a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not disclose details such as the return format, possible errors (e.g., Godot not found), or whether it uses the default installation or the provided binary path. It adds minimal context beyond the name but is not misleading.
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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('Read') and the target ('installed Godot version'), making it immediately scannable and efficient.
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 is simple, with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to clarify the purpose of the parameter and the tool's behavior when the parameter is omitted, which leaves some ambiguity for a complete understanding. The description is adequate for basic use but incomplete for edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional parameter 'godotBinary' with 0% coverage from the description, and the description does not explain the parameter at all. The parameter name gives a weak hint that it might be a path to the Godot binary, but the agent is left without guidance on how to use it or what happens if omitted. With low schema coverage and no compensation from the description, this is a significant gap.
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's function with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the installed Godot version'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifically targeting the Godot version, which is unique among the siblings.
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 used when the installed Godot version is needed, but it does not provide explicit context about when to use it versus alternatives. There are no direct sibling version tools, so the usage context is somewhat clear, but the description lacks any exclusions or alternative suggestions.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose the response format, whether the data is static or computed per call, or any potential cost/limitations. It adds some value by specifying the content type (versioned feature groups, compatibility) but lacks depth.
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?
A single concise sentence is front-loaded with the action and resources. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema, and a clear (if brief) description. The description conveys the core purpose and return content. However, because there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the structure of 'feature groups' would make it fully complete, but it is sufficient for a no-param discovery tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is little to explain. The empty input schema fully covers the parameter space. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but with no params, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 'Return versioned feature groups and compatibility information' clearly states the verb (return) and the resource (versioned feature groups and compatibility info). It distinguishes from siblings like get_godot_version and get_server_info by focusing on capabilities rather than server/version specifics, though the term 'feature groups' is slightly vague.
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?
Usage is implied: call this tool to discover available capabilities and compatibility. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_server_info or get_godot_version, nor any exclusions. The context of a no-param info tool makes this acceptable but not outstanding.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![godot-mcp-toolkit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/woyucbugongdaitian/godot-mcp-toolkit/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/woyucbugongdaitian/godot-mcp-toolkit)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![godot-mcp-toolkit MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/woyucbugongdaitian/godot-mcp-toolkit/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/woyucbugongdaitian/godot-mcp-toolkit)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/woyucbugongdaitian/godot-mcp-toolkit'

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