Open an existing .tscn or .scn scene in the connected Godot editor by providing the project path and scene path, enabling viewing or editing within the project.
Open an existing .tscn or .scn scene in the connected Godot editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenePath | Yes | Path to an existing .tscn or .scn scene relative to projectPath. | |
| projectPath | Yes | Absolute path to a directory containing project.godot. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a connection to the Godot editor is required, but not what happens on failure, whether opening replaces the currently edited scene, whether unsaved changes are lost, or whether the operation has side effects.
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 wasted words. It is efficient and readable, though it is so terse that it leaves little room to convey the behavioral context the tool lacks.
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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description states the essential action. However, with no annotations it should say more about editor state, failure behavior, and prerequisites, so it is only minimally adequate.
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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Open') and resource (an existing .tscn/.scn scene) plus where it acts ('the connected Godot editor'). The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling generate_tscn_scene, which creates scenes, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. It is left to inference how this relates to godot_play_scene, godot_editor_status, or generate_tscn_scene, and no precondition (e.g. editor must be connected) is spelled out beyond the phrase 'connected Godot editor'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.