Control Godot AnimationPlayer nodes to play, pause, stop, or list animations by specifying the node path and action.
Control an AnimationPlayer node: play, stop, pause, or list animations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | Action: "play", "stop", "pause", or "get_list" | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the AnimationPlayer node | |
| animation | No | Animation name (required for "play" action) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only enumerates actions without explaining consequences, return values, error conditions, or whether operations mutate transient game state. It does not disclose what happens with an invalid node path or missing animation name, or what the list action returns.
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. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and the supported operations.
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 description is enough to recognize the tool but not to fully invoke it confidently: it does not state what get_list returns, whether play/stop/pause have side effects or require a valid running scene, or how errors surface. The absence of annotations and an output schema increases the need for such context, which is not supplied.
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 and the description does not need to add much. The description's action list mirrors the schema's action values but adds no extra meaning about defaults, restrictions, or parameter relationships beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (AnimationPlayer node) and the four operations (play, stop, pause, list animations), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similar sibling game_animation_control, leaving some ambiguity about which animation-related tool to choose.
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 implies the tool is for driving an AnimationPlayer node, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like game_animation_control, game_animation_tree, or game_create_animation. There are no exclusions or explicit routing cues, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.