Create any Godot resource class and save it to a res:// path as .tres, with optional properties to set initial values.
Create a Resource of the given class and save it to a res:// path (.tres). Optional 'properties' dict sets initial values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | res:// path ending in .tres/.res | |
| class | Yes | ||
| properties | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true) by stating it saves to a path, implying file creation. However, it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, permission requirements, or error states. With annotations already indicating destructiveness, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond reinforcing the creation action.
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 20-word sentence that conveys the main action and optional feature. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. No unnecessary words, but could be more structured (e.g., separate optional parameters). Still, it earns its place.
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 tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the core function. However, it lacks details on overwrite behavior, error handling, and return value. Compared to sibling 'set_resource', it should clarify that it creates new files. The description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 schema covers only 33% of parameters (path has description). The description compensates by mentioning 'class' and 'path' implicitly, and adds that properties is an optional dict for initial values. It also clarifies that path should end in .tres/.res, which is useful semantic detail not in the schema. While not exhaustive, it adds value beyond the schema for 2 of 3 params.
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 (create), the resource type (Resource of given class), and the destination (res:// path ending in .tres). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_resource' which likely updates existing resources. The verb+resource+destination pattern is specific and unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_resource', 'write_file', or 'instance_scene'. It does not specify prerequisites, error conditions, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided. The description lacks any usage context beyond the basic operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.