Delete a node and its descendants from a Godot scene by providing project, scene, and node paths.
Removes a node (and its descendants) from a scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes | ||
| scene_path | Yes | ||
| project_path | Yes |
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 must disclose behavior itself. It does disclose the key destructive detail that descendants are removed along with the node. However, it does not state that this mutates the scene file permanently, whether it requires special permissions, or what the effect is on the editor state, so transparency is incomplete.
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 with no filler. The verb and the most important behavioral caveat (descendants) are front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a sparse tool definition. The description does not address how this differs from the sibling editor_remove_node, whether removal is permanent and saved, or what the tool returns/confirms on success. For a destructive operation with multiple similar siblings, more context is needed.
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 needed to explain the parameters. It only indicates that 'node' refers to the node being removed (including descendants), but does not clarify the meaning/format of project_path, scene_path, or node_path, nor how they relate. The parameter names help, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Removes a node (and its descendants) from a scene.' This is clear and adds the descendant detail. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling editor_remove_node, which likely performs the same conceptual operation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus editor_remove_node, add_node, or set_node_properties. The description only states what it does, not the conditions or context for choosing it. With a near-identical sibling name, this is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.