cocos_prefab_instantiateInstantiate a prefab into any Cocos Creator scene by UUID. Assign a parent node and custom name as needed.
实例化预制体到场景
| 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 mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the title. It does not mention what changes in the scene, whether the prefab is instantiated as a child of something, or any side effects. The description does not contradict the annotations, so no contradiction is flagged.
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 short phrase, which is concise but under-specified. It only repeats the title and provides no structured information, earning it a low score because brevity here is a result of omission, not efficient communication.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, destructive annotations, and a large set of sibling tools, this tool needs far more than a one-line restatement. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly or interpret its effects.
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 parameter explanations. Required fields like uuid and optional fields like parentId are completely unexplained, so the agent cannot infer their meaning or formatting from the description. This is a critical gap given the nested params object.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It merely restates the tool's purpose, so an agent has no information about when this is the right choice among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.