emptysock-mcp

scene_create_entity

Add a new entity to a scene with optional tag and components, and retrieve the new entity's ID.

Instructions

Add a new entity to a scene. Returns the new entity's ID.

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": {
      "sceneId": "<sceneId>"
    },
    "name": "scene_create_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No
`sceneId`	Yes
`components`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates a scene and returns the new entity's ID, but it does not state whether the operation is reversible, whether components must already exist, or what happens if the sceneId is invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and return value. It earns its place, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the 'components' parameter, any constraints on 'tag', or error behavior. An agent would need to guess or inspect other tools to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the return value, not the meaning of 'tag' or 'components'. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's bare property names, leaving the agent to guess what values are valid.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('a new entity to a scene'), and mentions the return value (entity ID). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like scene_list_entities or scene_entity_info, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., scene must exist), nor does it contrast with scene_entity_info or scene_list_entities. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'Add'.

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