Retrieves the active scene in the Godot editor as a node tree and lists all open scenes, enabling AI clients to inspect the current editor state for project awareness and scene manipulation.
Returns the scene currently open in the Godot editor as a node tree, plus the list of open scenes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 the full burden. It states that it 'returns' data, which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any side effects, performance implications, or limitations. For a simple getter, this is minimal but acceptable; it does not contradict anything and provides basic behavioral context.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and result. No wasted words, and the return value is clearly specified. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
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 no output schema, the description is the sole source of return information. It clearly states both the scene tree and the list of open scenes, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is complete enough, though it could optionally mention whether the result is read-only or cached.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none. It correctly focuses on the output instead.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('scene currently open in the Godot editor as a node tree, plus the list of open scenes'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like editor_get_selection (which returns selection) and editor_open_scene (which opens a scene). The purpose is unambiguous.
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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident for a getter, and the context of siblings implies it is the tool for retrieving the scene tree. Still, no explicit routing guidance is provided, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.