Change a node's name in an existing Godot scene to update its identifier and references.
Rename a node in an existing scene
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newName | Yes | New node name (identifier) | |
| 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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether the change is persisted to disk or requires a separate save_scene call, or whether renaming breaks existing script/signal references. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful transparency gap.
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 compact sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate density.
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 mutating node operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits critical context: whether changes are written to the scene file immediately, the expected error behavior for an invalid nodePath, and what the result looks like. An agent could invoke the arguments correctly but cannot predict the side effects.
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 (projectPath, scenePath, nodePath, newName) are already documented in the schema with examples like 'root/Player'. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or validation 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 and resource (rename a node) and scopes it to an existing scene, which cleanly separates it from creation-oriented siblings like add_node, create_scene, or duplicate_node. It stops short of naming an alternative or noting how it differs from set_node_property, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 phrase 'in an existing scene' hints at a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how this relates to set_node_property or instance_scene, and no indication of what to do if the node does not exist. An agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.