execute_custom_toolExecute any custom tool registered by Codely Bridge using its name and optional parameters to control Tuanjie editor scenes, GameObjects, scripts, assets, and console.
Executes a custom tool registered by the official Codely Bridge package. Pass tool_name and an optional parameters object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_name | Yes | ||
| parameters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already include destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this can be destructive. The description adds the context that the tool comes from the official Codely Bridge package, but it does not disclose that executing a custom tool may have arbitrary side effects or depend entirely on the registered tool's behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the relevant invocation detail without redundancy.
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 generic custom-tool executor with no output schema and arbitrary parameters, this description is incomplete. It does not mention how to discover registered tool names, what parameters mean for different tools, or that behavior and return values vary by tool. The destructive annotation covers risk partially, but the operational workflow is underexplained.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain parameter meaning, but it only restates the names: 'Pass tool_name and an optional parameters object.' It does not clarify what tool_name values are valid, how the parameters object is structured, or how it is passed to the underlying custom tool.
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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Executes') and a resource class ('a custom tool registered by the official Codely Bridge package'). It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like unity_custom_tools or execute_csharp_script.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description tells the agent to pass tool_name and parameters, but never explains when this tool should be chosen over alternatives, when it should not be used, or how to discover valid custom tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.