Set up a new Godot scene by specifying project path, scene file location, and root node type to start structuring game objects.
Create a new Godot scene file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenePath | Yes | Path where the scene file will be saved (relative to project) | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path | |
| rootNodeType | No | Type of the root node (e.g., Node2D, Node3D) |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the write nature of the operation but says nothing about whether an existing file at scenePath is overwritten, whether the .tscn extension is appended automatically, what root node is created when rootNodeType is omitted, or whether the project must already exist. For a file-writing tool this is a significant risk-surface 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 single sentence is waste-free and front-loads the purpose with no filler. However, for a write tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is under-specification rather than appropriately sized — genuinely useful detail is absent.
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?
This is a moderate-complexity tool (file creation, optional third parameter, no output schema) covered only by a single sentence. The description never addresses what the tool returns, whether existing files are overwritten, how the scene path extension is handled, or what happens when rootNodeType is omitted. An agent knows what the tool does but not how to invoke it safely in edge cases.
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%, with all three parameters (projectPath, scenePath, rootNodeType) already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond naming the operation, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('create') and resource ('Godot scene file'), and the word 'new' signals this is distinct from save_scene. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like save_scene, add_node, or modify_scene_node, leaving the boundary implicit rather than stated.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus save_scene (saving an existing scene), add_node (adding a node to a live scene), or modify_scene_node (editing an existing scene). There are no preconditions, exclusions, or routing hints — an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.