R3

Import an entity template into a project

r3_entity_import

Put a copy of an entity template (this account's, or a public one) into a project: every member with fresh ids, its positions and colours as saved, bound to a new Entity that starts DORMANT (started: false: its code, sounds and physics wait until r3_component_set sets started: true), or awake with started: true (its code, sounds and physics run at once). The copy remembers the template and version it came from. version imports an older version. Answers the new Entity's entityRef and its members' entityRefs. r3_editor_undo takes it back.

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>",
      "templateId": "<templateId>"
    },
    "name": "r3_entity_import"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`started`	No	true: the copy runs at once (code, sounds, physics). Default false: dormant, woken later with r3_component_set {started: true}.
`version`	No	A version to import (default: the current one).
`projectId`	Yes	The project to put the copy into.
`templateId`	Yes	The template (r3_entity_list shows its templateId).

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.
`members`	Yes
`started`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`entityId`	Yes
`entityRef`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes
`templateId`	Yes
`valueComponentCount`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / started

Added value: +{
+  "description": "true: the copy runs at once (code, sounds, physics). Default false: dormant, woken later with r3_component_set {started: true}.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not idempotent, non-destructive). The description goes well beyond: it explains that members get fresh ids, that the new Entity defaults to DORMANT with code/sounds/physics suspended until r3_component_set started:true, that the copy retains its source template and version, and that r3_editor_undo reverts it. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 core action is front-loaded, which is good, but the whole definition is one dense run-on sentence with nested parentheses around the dormant/awake explanation. The content is nearly all useful, yet the packing makes it harder to parse than a couple of short sentences would 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 non-idempotent mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the important unknowns: default dormancy, how to activate, version selection, provenance retention, and the undo path. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including started and version semantics. The description restates those semantics (dormant vs. running, older version import) without adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: puts a copy of an entity template into a project, with every member re-id'd. This is clearly distinguishable from r3_entity_save_template (the inverse operation) and r3_entity_list, both of which appear in the sibling list.

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 gives clear operational context: use this to instantiate a template (own or public) into a project, and it points at r3_component_set for waking the copy and r3_editor_undo for reversal. It does not state explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer r3_editor_add_component or r3_blender_import instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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?