cocos_scene_hierarchyFetch scene hierarchy in paginated chunks from Cocos Creator projects. Use offset and limit parameters to load node lists, including internal nodes and components, for efficient scene inspection.
分页读取场景层级
| 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the title. It does not explain what hierarchy structure is returned, how pagination behaves, or what includeInternal/includeComponents control.
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 extremely short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It repeats the title and provides no structured or front-loaded information to help the agent invoke the tool correctly.
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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this one-phrase description is inadequate. The agent cannot determine what fields are returned, what the params mean, or how the hierarchy is scoped, so it is not complete enough to call reliably.
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 names none of the six parameters, despite parameters like rootId, includeInternal, and includeComponents needing explanation. The only hint, 'paginated', maps vaguely to limit/offset and does not compensate for the missing schema 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?
The description contains no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many related scene/node/query tools. There is no context, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.