Load, save, or check existence of Godot resources at runtime. Use res:// paths to manage assets, including saving a node's property to a resource file.
Runtime resource load, save, or preload
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Resource path (res://) | |
| action | Yes | Action: load, save, exists | |
| nodePath | No | Node path (for save - saves node resource) | |
| property | No | Property name holding the resource |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It indicates runtime resource operations but does not disclose side effects, such as whether save writes to disk, whether preload caches the resource, what exists returns, or whether the operations require an already-loaded node. The mismatch between the description's 'preload' and the schema's 'exists' further muddies 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 compact phrase with the runtime qualifier front-loaded and no filler words. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameter details live in the schema, though it is too sparse to stand alone.
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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify accepted action values, prerequisites for saving, return behavior, and side effects. It does none of these, leaving an agent to guess at important runtime semantics beyond the bare parameter names.
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 even though the description itself adds no parameter detail. The schema descriptions for action, path, nodePath, and property are present but terse and somewhat ambiguous, especially nodePath and property in the save case. The description does not reconcile 'preload' with the schema's accepted action values.
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 names a specific domain (runtime resources) and a set of concrete operations (load, save, preload), so an agent can tell it is a runtime resource utility. It does not fully distinguish it from siblings like create_resource, manage_resource, or read_file/write_file, and it conflicts slightly with the schema's action list (preload vs exists), but the core purpose is understandable.
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 about when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as create_resource, manage_resource, or read_file/write_file. The word 'runtime' weakly implies it is for game-time resource operations, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.