Add a new node of the specified class to the current Godot scene, optionally under a chosen parent. The action is undoable and defaults to the scene root.
Create a node of the given class and add it to the open scene (undoable). parent = a node path/name (default: scene root).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| type | Yes | node class, e.g. Sprite2D | |
| parent | No | parent node path/name; default scene root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the important behavioral trait 'undoable', which is beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the operation is not destructive despite being a write.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences. Information is front-loaded, with no redundant or unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description meets basic needs but lacks details on error scenarios (e.g., invalid class), duplicate name handling, or return value. It does not fully compensate for the missing output schema.
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?
The description adds limited value beyond the input schema: it reiterates the parent default but does not explain the 'name' parameter or provide additional syntax/format guidance for 'type' (though schema gives an example). Schema description coverage is high but still missing details for 'name'.
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 verb 'Create' and resource 'node', with specific context: 'of the given class', 'add it to the open scene', and 'undoable'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_node or duplicate_node.
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 explains the 'parent' parameter's default behavior but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among siblings, such as instance_scene or other creation methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.