Gear

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

project-info

Returns metadata about a Godot project including name, version, main scene, autoloads, and directory structure. Use to understand the project before making modifications.

Instructions

[compact alias of get_project_info] Returns metadata about a Godot project including name, version, main scene, autoloads, and directory structure. Use to understand project before modifying. Requires valid project.godot.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>"
    },
    "name": "project-info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectPath`	Yes	Absolute path to project directory containing project.godot. Use the same path across all tool calls in a workflow.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1May 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Returns metadata' and 'Requires valid project.godot,' implying no side effects. However, it does not disclose potential failures, error handling, or idempotency. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The alias note is front-loaded, and the purpose and prerequisite are clearly stated. Efficiently uses space.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns and the prerequisite. It could briefly mention whether directory structure includes full tree or just top-level, but overall complete enough.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameter well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning 'project.godot' indirectly. Baseline 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 clearly states it returns metadata about a Godot project with specific items (name, version, main scene, autoloads, directory structure). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scene-info or class-info.

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 description says 'Use to understand project before modifying,' which provides explicit context for when to use it. While it doesn't mention when not to use or list alternatives, the guidance is clear and appropriate for a read-only informational tool.

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