cocos_scene_queryQuery the current Cocos Creator scene to retrieve its information and modification status, helping identify unsaved changes.
读取当前场景信息和修改状态
| 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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'read' aligns with them. The phrase '修改状态' is most plausibly interpreted as 'modification state' (a query target) rather than a write action, so it does not contradict annotations. However, the description adds little beyond the annotation safety profile—only a vague hint about what is queried.
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 sentence, which is technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks any hierarchy or key information placement, and every word is vague. Brevity here is not a virtue; it is avoidance of necessary detail.
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 a nested params object, the description is utterly insufficient. It does not explain the operation context, expected inputs, return values, or relation to siblings. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the provided information.
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 offers no parameter details whatsoever. With six parameters including projectId, operationId, instanceId, and a params object, an agent has no idea what values to supply or what the params object should contain. The description completely fails to compensate for the absent 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many scene-related siblings (snapshot, diff, hierarchy, open, save, node_query, etc.). No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits the task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.