Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gear

Gear

by wvfp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

project-setting-set

Writes a value to a Godot project setting (project.godot), enabling configuration of game name, window size, physics, etc.

Instructions

[compact alias of set_project_setting] Writes a value to project.godot settings. Use to configure game name, window size, physics, etc.

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>",
      "setting": "<setting>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "project-setting-set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesAbsolute path to project directory containing project.godot. Use the same path across all tool calls in a workflow.
settingYesSetting path (e.g., "application/config/name", "display/window/size/width")
valueYesValue to set (Godot auto-converts types)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'writes a value' without detailing side effects, error conditions, permissions, or reversibility. This is insufficient 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, efficient sentence that includes an alias note and examples, with 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 3-parameter tool without annotations, the description covers purpose and examples but lacks behavioral details, making it partially complete.

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% with clear parameter descriptions; the tool description adds no additional value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 writes a value to project.godot settings and provides examples like game name, window size, physics, distinguishing it from its sibling project-setting-get which reads settings.

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 indicates usage for configuring settings but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives; however, the sibling 'project-setting-get' is naturally complementary.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools