Set the main scene for a Godot project by providing the project path and scene path, updating project.godot to define which scene loads at startup.
Set the main scene in project.godot
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenePath | Yes | Scene path (relative to project) | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path |
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 behavioral traits. It mentions that project.godot is modified, but it does not state whether this overwrites an existing main scene, whether the change is reversible, or what side effects might occur in the running project. For a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 with no filler or redundant wording. It is well-structured and front-loads the core action and target, though it could be slightly richer in behavioral guidance.
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?
For a simple two-parameter operation, the description is minimally sufficient: it states what is set and where. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks insight into side effects, return behavior, and when to prefer this tool over related project-setting tools, leaving clear 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%, with both parameters already documented. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which places it at the baseline. The mention of project.godot provides slight context that projectPath likely points to a Godot project containing that file, but not much more.
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 states a specific action ('Set') and a specific resource ('the main scene in project.godot'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as modify_project_settings, which could also potentially change this setting, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 like modify_project_settings or create_project. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.