Create, read, or modify Godot Theme .tres resources by providing project path, resource path, action, and optional theme properties.
Create/read/modify Theme .tres resources
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action: create, read, modify | |
| properties | No | Theme properties to set | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path | |
| resourcePath | Yes | Theme file path (relative to project) |
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 disclosing side effects. It only restates the CRUD-style actions already visible in the action parameter, and does not explain whether modify merges or overwrites, whether create fails on existing files, what safety constraints exist, or what a read 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 concise sentence with no filler and the key scope is front-loaded. It is economical and readable, though the brevity contributes to missing behavioral and contextual details.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undefined nested properties structure, the description leaves out return behavior, error/failure conditions, and property format details. For a tool that can create and modify resources, this is insufficient context for reliable invocation.
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: each parameter already has a basic description in the schema. The tool description adds only the .tres theme context; it does not clarify the opaque nested 'properties' object or define valid theme property types, but the schema coverage prevents a lower score.
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 names the resource type ('Theme .tres resources') and the operations available ('Create/read/modify'), so an agent can understand what the tool targets. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like manage_resource or create_resource, so it falls short of a top score.
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 resource type and action list imply usage for Theme .tres files, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is mentioned. Given the large sibling set, the agent must infer the tool's intended role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.