Create a directory in a Godot project by supplying the project path and a directory path relative to the project root. Simplifies folder setup for game projects.
Create a directory inside a Godot project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path | |
| directoryPath | Yes | Directory path relative to project root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and does not reveal what happens if the directory already exists, whether parent directories are created automatically, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation operation, this is a notable gap.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though the brevity trades away behavioral context that would have made it more useful.
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 core invocation details are present through the schema, and the description gives the tool's domain. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves open questions about idempotence, recursive directory creation, and success/failure reporting. It is minimally usable but not fully self-contained.
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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description does not add format or semantic details beyond the schema, but the schema already documents projectPath and directoryPath as a project path and a relative directory path. No additional parameter elaboration is critical.
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 and object: creating a directory within a Godot project. The resource type 'directory' makes the tool distinguishable from file, scene, or resource creation siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative. It is clear but relies on the reader to infer the separation from related creation 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings like create_resource, create_scene, or write_file, and no mention of preconditions or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'inside a Godot project,' which is already implied by the tool domain. An agent is left to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.