emptysock-mcp

navmesh_nearest_node

Find the nearest walkable navigation point on a map to a given world coordinate.

Instructions

Return the nearest walkable node on the navmesh to a given world point.

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": {
      "mapId": "<mapId>",
      "point": "<point>"
    },
    "name": "navmesh_nearest_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mapId`	Yes
`point`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description itself carries the full burden. It reveals that the returned node is 'walkable' and uses a 'world point', which is useful, but it omits key behavioral details: what happens if no node is walkable, whether the point is clamped/projected, return structure, or whether the map must be loaded.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool appears conceptually simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify expected inputs and outputs. It does not describe the return value, error conditions, or coordinate-system behavior. For an agent to call it correctly, too much is left to inference.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It clarifies that 'point' is a world point, which helps, but 'mapId' is left undocumented and the coordinate units/space of x/y are not fully specified. The nested object format is not explained in the description.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Return') and resource ('nearest walkable node on the navmesh') given a world point. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling navmesh_find_path, though the noun 'node' versus 'path' implies the distinction.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus navmesh_find_path or other physics/scene tools. There is no stated when-not-to-use, prerequisite like an active map or loaded navmesh, or comparison to alternatives.

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