Connect a node's signal to a method on another node, persisting the wiring into the scene with undo support. Specify source, signal, target, and method to create the connection.
Connect a node's signal to a method on another node, persisted into the scene (undoable). from/to = node path/name in the open scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| method | Yes | ||
| signal | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate a non-read, non-destructive operation. The description adds 'undoable' context, enhancing transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as validation or node existence requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and critical context (undoable, node path format). Every word serves a purpose without fluff.
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 explains the persistence and undoability, and hints at parameter format, but omits details about signal and method parameters, return values, and error conditions. For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, this leaves moderate 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'from' and 'to' as node path/name, but provides no semantics for 'signal' or 'method'. This is insufficient for an agent to understand all parameter roles.
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 the action: 'Connect a node's signal to a method on another node'. It specifies the verb (connect) and the resources (node's signal, method on another node), distinguishing it from siblings like disconnect_signal and call_method.
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 usage for persistent connections with 'persisted into the scene (undoable)' and clarifies that from/to are node paths/names. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like disconnect_signal or call_method, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.