Inspect any node's signals and their connections by providing a node path. Get a complete list of signals with connected methods and targets for debugging or automation.
List all signals on a node with connections
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the node |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only listing but does not state whether the operation has side effects, whether the node must exist, or what the returned data contains. 'With connections' is too vague to convey the actual behavior.
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 sentence with no filler and leads with the action and object. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though slightly terse given the ambiguous 'with connections'.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the result looks like — signal names, connection counts, connected callables, etc. It does not. This is a significant gap for an inspection tool, since an agent cannot predict the return format or how to interpret 'connections.'
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 contains one parameter, nodePath, with a clear description: 'Path to the node.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
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 and resource: 'List all signals on a node with connections.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling signal tools like game_connect_signal or game_emit_signal. However, the phrase 'with connections' is somewhat ambiguous and does not explicitly map to any sibling boundary.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_scene_signals or game_get_node_info. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as a valid scene or node path being loaded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.