Duplicate a node in an existing Godot scene as a sibling, with an optional new name, so you can reuse and modify scene objects without manual copying.
Duplicate a node in an existing scene as a sibling
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newName | No | Optional name for the copy (defaults to <name>Copy) | |
| nodePath | Yes | Node path like root/Player | |
| scenePath | Yes | Scene file relative to project | |
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the outcome placement (the copy becomes a sibling), but says nothing about whether the change is persisted to disk versus in-memory (save_scene is a separate sibling tool), what happens if the node does not exist, or how errors surface.
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?
A single short sentence with the action and the placement constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Its only shortfall is that brevity shades into under-specification rather than pure efficiency.
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 scene-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits persistence semantics, failure behavior, and how it relates to save_scene. An agent could invoke it but would not know whether saving is required afterward.
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 all four parameters, including the newName default of '<name>Copy', are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or usage detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (duplicate), resource (node), and scope (in an existing scene, as a sibling). An agent can distinguish it from add_node or instance_scene at a glance, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as add_node (create fresh) or instance_scene (reference a packed scene). The agent must infer when duplication is preferable to those options, and no prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.