Remove a node and its children from the currently open Godot scene, with undo support via Ctrl+Z.
Removes a node (and its descendants) from the scene open in the Godot editor (live, undoable with Ctrl+Z).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes | ||
| scene_path | No | Optional safety check: fail unless this is the scene currently open in the editor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive scope ('and its descendants'), the immediate live effect, and reversibility ('undoable with Ctrl+Z'). It does not mention potential auth or failure conditions, but the core behavioral traits are clearly exposed.
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 packs the action, scope, target context, and undo behavior with no filler. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place.
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 direct mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, this description covers the core behavior, scope, and reversibility, and the schema covers the safety parameter. The main missing piece is node_path syntax detail, which slightly limits completeness but does not undermine correct usage for an agent familiar with Godot paths.
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 50%: node_path is undocumented while scene_path has a safety description. The tool description clarifies that node_path is the node to remove and implies an editor tree path, but it does not specify format, root-relative vs absolute, or example values, so it only partially compensates.
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 action ('Removes'), a precise resource ('a node (and its descendants)'), and the context ('from the scene open in the Godot editor'). It also adds distinctive traits—live and undoable—that separate it from siblings like remove_node or editor_add_node.
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 context is clear: this operates on the live Godot editor scene and is undoable, implying it is for interactive editor edits. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with remove_node or state when to prefer one over the other, so it misses full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.