godot-mcp-extended

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_node

Delete a node and its children from an existing Godot scene to modify scene structure. Specify the project path, scene file, and node path.

Instructions

Remove a node (and its children) from an existing scene

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>",
      "scenePath": "<scenePath>",
      "nodePath": "<nodePath>"
    },
    "name": "remove_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nodePath`	Yes	Node path like root/Player (cannot be root)
`scenePath`	Yes	Scene file relative to project
`projectPath`	Yes	Path to the Godot project directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely important side effect — that children are removed along with the node — but says nothing about reversibility, whether a save is required afterward, or error behavior on an invalid nodePath.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key cascading side effect in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the core scope (node plus children) but omits prerequisites and post-call state (e.g. whether the change is persisted to disk). It is adequate but leaves real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the nodePath constraint that root cannot be removed. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (node) plus scope (from an existing scene), which cleanly separates it from siblings like add_node, rename_node, and duplicate_node. It stops short of naming any alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to remove versus rename/duplicate, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the scene must be loaded or saved first), and no note on what to do if the node does not exist. The phrase 'from an existing scene' only implies the scene must already exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.