cocos_node_createCreate a scene node in Cocos Creator projects, returning its actual node details for immediate use in scene automation.
创建节点并返回实际节点信息
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| instanceId | No | ||
| operationId | No | ||
| expectedRevision | No | ||
| runtimeInstanceId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict that. However, the description adds only that it returns actual node information; it does not explain side effects, whether existing nodes are modified, what happens on partial failure, or what the returned node information is used for.
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 a single brief sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it adds almost no information beyond the title.
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?
With six parameters, no output schema, no parameter documentation, a destructive annotation, and many sibling tools, this minimal description is far from sufficient. An agent cannot reliably determine required inputs, expected behavior, or return format from the provided context.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for six parameters including the nested params object, projectId, parentId, assetUuid, operationId, or expectedRevision. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 tool versus alternatives such as cocos_node_set, cocos_prefab_instantiate, or cocos_component_add. The description does not mention prerequisites, parent-node requirements, or cases where a different node-related tool should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.