Manage Godot node groups by adding or removing nodes, listing all groups, or clearing a group's contents.
Add or remove a node from a group, or list groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Group name | |
| action | Yes | Action: add, remove, get_groups, clear_group | |
| nodePath | No | 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?
There are no annotations, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates group membership and can list groups, but it does not explain side effects of clear_group, return values, error behavior, or any prerequisites such as requiring an existing scene or valid node path.
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 efficient sentence and is easy to scan. However, it sacrifices completeness by omitting clear_group, so it is concise but not fully representative of the tool's behavior.
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?
With four distinct actions, varying parameter requirements, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke every action. The missing clear_group behavior and lack of action-specific parameter guidance are notable gaps.
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 is 3. The description adds a coarse mapping to actions like add, remove, and list groups, but it does not clarify the parameter dependencies, such as which actions require group or nodePath, and it omits clear_group entirely from the description.
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 clearly identifies the resource (groups) and the main operations (add, remove, list). It distinguishes group management from most siblings, but it omits the clear_group action and does not explicitly contrast with the closely related game_get_nodes_in_group tool.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. In particular, it does not mention that read-only group membership queries may be better served by game_get_nodes_in_group, nor does it explain when to choose get_groups versus clear_group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.