R3

Put many components into an Entity

r3_entity_assign

Destructive

Put many components of a project into one Entity in a single change, instead of r3_component_set {"entity": …} once per component. Name them in members (entityRefs or ids), or let match find them ({"prefix": "ship1_"} on the entityRef, {"type": "Mesh"}, or both). Each one's value components (position, rotation, scale, colours) follow it, as with r3_component_set; a component in another entity moves (the plan says from where). Without planId it only PLANS and changes nothing: the members, what follows each, what a match skipped (Entities and project infrastructure never join one) and what is refused (not found, a name several components share, two members that would share one entityRef inside the entity). With that planId it applies the plan as ONE undoable change every open R3 tab sees, writing only the entity of each, all or nothing: if anything it touches changed since, nothing is written and the new plan is returned.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "entity": "<entity>"
    },
    "name": "r3_entity_assign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`match`	No	Find the components instead of naming them: prefix, type, or both (both must hold).
`entity`	Yes	The Entity to put them in: its entityRef or id (r3_project_load lists it).
`planId`	No	The plan being applied, from this tool without planId (same members / match). Leave it out to plan.
`members`	No	The components to put in it, by entityRef or id. Or use match.
`projectId`	Yes	The project, from r3_project_load.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seq`	Yes
`answer`	Yes	This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.
`entity`	Yes
`planId`	Yes
`applied`	Yes
`changes`	Yes
`created`	Yes
`members`	Yes
`skipped`	Yes
`refusals`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes
`applicable`	Yes
`environment`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds substantial operational detail: planning mode changes nothing, applying is one undoable change visible to open tabs, writes only each component's entity, is all-or-nothing, detects concurrent changes, and returns a new plan on conflict.

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 dense and front-loads the core action before covering modes and edge cases. It is appropriately sized for a complex batch mutation, though the long single paragraph and some compressed phrasing make it harder to scan than it could be.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive batch tool with a planning/apply split, conflict detection, and member selection options, the description covers the behavior an agent needs before calling it. An output schema exists, so it does not need to enumerate return fields.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the schema documents the parameters. The description still adds important meaning beyond it by explaining the planId lifecycle, that match and members are alternatives, that both match fields must hold, and which candidates are skipped or refused.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: put many project components into one Entity in a single change. It explicitly contrasts this with r3_component_set and clearly distinguishes batch assignment from per-component updates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains when to use this instead of r3_component_set, how to identify components via members or match, and the critical planId workflow: without planId it only plans, with planId it applies. The conditions for both modes are explicit.

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

All R3 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?