Creates a new Godot scene file with a single root node, providing a starting point for building scene trees.
Creates a new .tscn file with a single root node. Use add_node afterward to build out the tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | ||
| root_name | Yes | ||
| root_type | Yes | Godot node class, e.g. "Node2D", "CharacterBody2D", "Control" | |
| scene_path | Yes | Where to write the new scene, e.g. scenes/Player.tscn | |
| project_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects like overwrite behavior, file creation failure handling, or permissions. For a mutation tool that creates a file, this is insufficient.
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?
Two sentences, with the core action front-loaded. No fluff, efficient.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters and 4 required, and no output schema. The description is minimal and doesn't explain the meaning of required parameters, overwrite behavior, or error conditions. It also doesn't clarify the distinction from editor_add_node, which could confuse an agent.
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 coverage is only 40%, with root_type and scene_path described. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, leaving project_path, root_name, and overwrite unexplained. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.
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 clearly states it creates a new .tscn file with a single root node, which is a specific verb and resource. It also hints at the workflow with add_node, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other scene-related tools.
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?
It provides a clear usage context: create the scene first, then use add_node to build the tree. However, it doesn't mention any alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it clarify prerequisites like project path existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.