Select a canonical node path only when the inspected scene token matches, preventing selection errors in the Godot editor.
Select a canonical relative node path only if the inspected scene token matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes | ||
| expected_scene_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds the conditional behavior of requiring a token match, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens if the token does not match (e.g., error, no-op) or any side effects, even though it could.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loads the primary action and condition. It wastes no words, but could include more actionable details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 required parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the tool is simple, but the description lacks critical semantics for both parameters. An agent would not know the format of node_path (e.g., slash-separated) or how to obtain expected_scene_token (e.g., from worldkit_scene_summary). Given the 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'canonical relative node path' and 'inspected scene token' but does not explain their format, meaning, or relationship. The condition 'only if the inspected scene token matches' implies expected_scene_token is compared to something, but no detail is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Select'), a resource ('canonical relative node path'), and a condition ('only if the inspected scene token matches'). However, the meaning of 'canonical relative node path' and 'inspected scene token' is not explained, and the tool's purpose is not clearly differentiated from siblings like worldkit_selected_nodes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a condition for use ('only if the inspected scene token matches') which implies when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The sibling worldkit_selected_nodes suggests there is a related tool that selects nodes without a token condition, but no guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.