Opens a Godot scene in the editor and switches to its tab, enabling live editing with node addition, property changes, and node removal.
Opens a scene in the Godot editor (switching to its tab) so it can be edited live with editor_add_node, editor_set_properties and editor_remove_node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene_path | Yes | e.g. "res://scenes/Main.tscn" or "scenes/Main.tscn" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the side effect of switching to the editor tab, which is useful, but does not disclose potential failure cases (e.g., if the scene does not exist) or that it changes the editor's UI state without modifying the scene. This is a moderate gap for a non-destructive operation.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, and it does not waste space on redundant details.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient to guide an agent. It explains the action, the resource, and its role in the editing workflow. The only missing piece is explicit error behavior for non-existent scenes, which is a minor omission for an opening command.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including an example format. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly.
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 the specific action (opens a scene), the resource (a scene in the Godot editor), and the purpose (to enable live editing via editor_add_node, editor_set_properties, and editor_remove_node). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on opening an existing scene for editing, rather than creating, reading, or manipulating nodes directly.
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 implies the tool is a prerequisite for live editing tools by stating it enables them. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or alternative tools such as read_scene for inspection. The context is clear for its intended use, but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.