Creates a new Godot scene file at a specified path within a project, optionally setting the root node type.
Create a new Godot scene file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenePath | Yes | Path where the scene file will be saved (relative to project) | |
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory | |
| rootNodeType | No | Type of the root node (e.g., Node2D, Node3D) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no context explaining that destructive flag — notably whether creating at an existing scenePath overwrites an existing file. For a write tool with a destructive hint, the description should clarify overwrite/error behavior, which it does not.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves it thin rather than genuinely tight.
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 file-creating mutation with a destructive annotation and no output schema, the agent needs to know what is returned (path, UID, root node) and what happens on path collisions. Neither is covered, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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 three parameters (scenePath, projectPath, rootNodeType) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning such as a default root node type or path format expectations, so 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 ('Create a new Godot scene file'), so the agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as save_scene, modify_scene, or instance_scene, which all touch scenes.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus save_scene or modify_scene, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., project must exist, scene path must not already exist). The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.