emptysock-mcp

scene_get_component

Retrieve a component's serialized state from a scene entity by providing scene ID, entity ID, and component type.

Instructions

Retrieve the serialised state of a specific component on an entity.

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>",
      "entityId": "<entityId>",
      "componentType": "<componentType>"
    },
    "name": "scene_get_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sceneId`	Yes
`entityId`	Yes
`componentType`	Yes	PascalCase class name, e.g. Transform, PhysicsBody

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation and 'serialised state' hints at the return format, but the description does not disclose error behavior, missing entity/component handling, or the exact serialization format.

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 filler words. The core verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter getter, the description plus the componentType schema note is minimally viable, but the lack of an output schema makes the 'serialised state' return type vague, and the two identifier parameters remain underspecified. It is usable but leaves important retrieval details implicit.

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 low at 33%, with only componentType described, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented sceneId and entityId parameters. It gives no guidance on where these identifiers come from or how they should be formatted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('serialised state of a specific component on an entity'), making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishing it from entity-level siblings such as scene_entity_info. It does not explicitly name an alternative it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; the description only states what the tool does. An agent is not told how to choose this over scene_entity_info or scene_list_entities, nor are any prerequisites or context given.

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