PlayCanvas Editor MCP Server

Official

by playcanvas

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources (entities, assets, components, scripts, store, scene settings), but some overlap exists: 'store_download' and 'store_get' could be confused (both retrieve assets from store), and 'modify_entities' vs 'add_components'/'remove_components' have related entity modification functions. Descriptions help clarify boundaries.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout (e.g., create_assets, delete_entities, list_assets), with minor deviations: 'script_parse' uses a noun_verb structure, and 'set_material_diffuse' includes a property name, but overall naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count3/5
With 21 tools, this is borderline heavy for a scene editor server, as it might overwhelm agents with many specialized operations. However, it covers a broad domain (entity, asset, component, script, store, and scene management), so the count is reasonable but could be streamlined.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD/lifecycle coverage for PlayCanvas scene editing: create, list, modify, delete for entities and assets; component and script management; store operations; and scene settings. No obvious gaps exist, enabling agents to perform full workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.6/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 6 of 6 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 18 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 24, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral information. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are destructive, what happens to existing script text, or any rate limits or 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information that would help an agent understand and use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is completely inadequate for a mutation tool with 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema. It provides no context about what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect as a result, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 2 required parameters (assetId and text), and the description provides no information about either parameter. It doesn't explain what assetId refers to, what format text should be in, or any constraints or examples for these inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set script text' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'set' and resource 'script text', but doesn't explain what this means operationally or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'add_script_component_script' or 'script_parse'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction despite multiple related sibling tools existing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. 'Reparent an entity' implies a mutation operation that changes an entity's parent, but it does not address critical behaviors like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects on child entities, or error conditions. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, as it omits necessary details for a mutation tool with multiple parameters. While structurally efficient, it prioritizes conciseness over clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, low schema coverage (25%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the operation's effects, return values, or error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent. The lack of contextual information renders the tool poorly defined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is low at 25%, with only the 'id' parameter documented. The description does not add any semantic information about the parameters, such as explaining what 'reparent' means in terms of 'id' and 'parent', the purpose of 'index' or 'preserveTransform', or how they affect the operation. It fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage, leaving most parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reparent an entity' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('reparent') and resource ('entity'), but fails to explain what reparenting entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'modify_entities' or 'duplicate_entities'. This leaves the purpose vague and indistinguishable from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing existing entities or valid parent-child relationships, nor does it suggest when other tools like 'modify_entities' might be more appropriate. Without any usage context, the agent lacks direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to explain what parsing does (e.g., validates syntax, extracts metadata, returns errors), whether it's read-only or has side effects (e.g., updates state), permissions required, or error handling. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond a basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single sentence, 'Parse the script after modification,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly terse, bordering on under-specification, as it lacks necessary details for clarity and completeness, though it's structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving parsing with a parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover the parameter meaning, parsing behavior, output format, or error cases. For a tool that likely processes scripts, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter (assetId) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention 'assetId' or explain what it represents (e.g., ID of a script asset to parse). Without this, the parameter's purpose is unclear, leaving a significant gap in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Parse the script after modification' restates the tool name 'script_parse' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It mentions 'script' and 'parse' but doesn't specify what parsing entails (e.g., syntax validation, extraction of components, error checking) or what resource is being parsed (e.g., a script asset, code block). Compared to siblings like 'set_script_text' or 'add_script_component_script', it lacks differentiation in scope or outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a modified script), exclusions (e.g., not for unmodified scripts), or related tools like 'set_script_text' for updates or 'add_script_component_script' for additions. The phrase 'after modification' implies a sequence but doesn't specify what constitutes modification or alternative workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Modify' implies a mutation operation, but the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it does not state whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings (partial updates vs. overwrites), or any side effects like performance impacts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a severe gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single three-word phrase—with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core action. While brevity can indicate under-specification, here it reflects structural efficiency without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutating scene settings with many nested parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'scene settings' encompass, the scope of modification, or the return behavior. The rich input schema helps, but the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, especially for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all nested properties (e.g., gravity, ambientBake, fog). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description does not compensate but doesn't need to, as the schema is comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Modify the scene settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides a generic verb ('modify') and resource ('scene settings') but lacks specificity about what scene settings are or what modification entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'query_scene_settings' (which likely reads settings) and 'modify_entities' (which modifies entities rather than settings), it fails to clearly differentiate its purpose beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'query_scene_settings' (for reading) or 'modify_entities' (for entity-level changes). Without any usage context, an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'instantiate' which implies a creation/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, it's arguably too concise given the lack of context for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool ('instantiate' implies creation/write) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'instantiate' entails, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'ids' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., what template assets are, format of IDs, or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('instantiate') and resource ('template assets'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about what 'instantiate' means in this context (e.g., creating instances from templates, cloning, activating) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_assets' or 'duplicate_entities' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With siblings like 'create_assets' and 'duplicate_entities' that might handle similar operations, the lack of differentiation leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not confirm this or detail any behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or response format. It lacks context on what 'scene settings' include or how the query is performed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste: 'Query the scene settings'. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'scene settings' are, what the query returns, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the absence of parameters without introducing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Query the scene settings' restates the tool name 'query_scene_settings' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'query' and resource 'scene settings' but lacks detail on what scene settings are or what querying entails, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'modify_scene_settings'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'list_entities' or 'modify_scene_settings' instead. The description implies a read operation but offers no explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact, leaving significant gaps for a search tool with multiple inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—no explanation of what 'search' parameter does, how 'limit' or 'skip' affect results, or the purpose of 'order'. With 4 parameters and no semantic context, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for an asset in the store' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('asset in the store'), but it's vague about what constitutes an 'asset' and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_assets' or 'store_download'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_assets' or 'store_download'. The description implies a search function but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add components to an entity' implies a mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether this overwrites existing components, what happens on failure, or what the return value might be. For a complex mutation tool with nested parameters, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that's already descriptive ('add_components'), though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place in conveying the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with deeply nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address the tool's behavior, error conditions, relationship to sibling tools, or what constitutes valid component data. For a mutation tool that can add multiple complex component types, more context is needed to help an agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id and components) thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between components or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add components to an entity' states the basic action (add) and target (components to entity), but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what types of components can be added or how this differs from sibling tools like 'add_script_component_script' or 'modify_entities'. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that modify entities (modify_entities, add_script_component_script, remove_components), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific 'add_components' operation is appropriate versus those other tools. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Add'), but doesn't specify permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies system state, as critical behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (one undocumented), and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context like behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'id' has a description), and the description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain what 'scriptName' represents or how parameters interact, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a script to a script component' states a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('script to a script component'), but it's vague about what this means operationally. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'add_components', 'set_script_text', or 'script_parse', leaving ambiguity about its specific role in the system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'add_components', 'set_script_text', and 'script_parse', the description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on failure (e.g., partial creation), if it's idempotent, or what the response looks like. For a complex creation tool with multiple asset types, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Create one or more assets'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately concise for a tool where detailed parameter semantics are covered in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (multiple asset types with nested schemas), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like whether assets are created synchronously/asynchronously. For a creation tool with such rich input structure, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all nested parameters (e.g., 'Array of assets to create' for the main parameter). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create one or more assets' states the verb (create) and resource (assets), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about what types of assets can be created (CSS, folder, HTML, material, script, shader, template, text) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'instantiate_template_assets' or 'list_assets'. It's adequate but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over sibling tools like 'instantiate_template_assets' (for templates) or 'add_components' (for components), or any context for asset creation. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., partial creation). For a complex creation tool with hierarchical data, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool where the schema carries most of the detail, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (hierarchical entity creation with multiple component types), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'entity' is in this system, how creation interacts with the scene, what the return value looks like, or error conditions. For a foundational creation tool, this leaves too much unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'entities' and its complex nested structure. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying multiplicity ('one or more'), which is already clear from the schema's array type with minItems:1. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create one or more entities' states the verb (create) and resource (entities), but is vague about what entities are in this context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'instantiate_template_assets' or 'duplicate_entities', which also create entities through different mechanisms. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'instantiate_template_assets' (for templated creation) or 'duplicate_entities' (for copying existing ones). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Duplicate' implies a write operation that creates copies, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether duplicates inherit properties, if there are rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like what 'duplicate' entails operationally, potential side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'ids' parameter well-documented but 'rename' lacking a description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline score of 3 reflects minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Duplicate one or more entities' clearly states the verb (duplicate) and resource (entities), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_entities' or 'modify_entities', leaving ambiguity about when duplication is preferred over creation or modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_entities' and 'modify_entities' available, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing existing entities to duplicate) or scenarios where duplication is appropriate over creation from scratch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a destructive mutation ('remove') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, reversibility, side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like what happens after removal, success/failure indicators, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and usage details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (id and components). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining component relationships or removal constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove components from an entity' clearly states the action (remove) and target (components from an entity), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_entities' or 'modify_entities'. It specifies the resource type (components) but lacks details about what removal entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools like 'add_components' for complementary operations or 'delete_entities' for broader deletions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'download' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, affects system state, or what the output format is. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of the parameters, the download behavior, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely involves asset retrieval and licensing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (id, name, license with nested author, authorUrl, license) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they relate to downloading assets, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('download') and resource ('asset from the store'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'store_get' or 'store_search', which might also retrieve assets, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'store_get' or 'store_search', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for downloading assets. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific formats, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in this minimal but effective phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' entails (e.g., returns metadata, downloads content), what an 'asset' is in this context, or how this differs from similar tools like 'store_download'. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't add any parameter details—it doesn't explain what 'id' represents, its format, or where to obtain it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('an asset from the store'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'store_search' (which searches) and 'store_download' (which downloads), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'store_get' over 'list_assets' (for listing) or 'store_search' (for searching), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an asset ID. Without any contextual usage information, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb, resource, and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling, or effects on related entities), nor does it cover permissions or safety considerations. Given the complexity and risk of deletion, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'ids' parameter as an array of asset IDs. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying deletion applies to multiple assets ('one or more'), which is already clear from the schema's array type and minItems constraint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('assets'), specifying it can handle 'one or more' assets. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_entities' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools beyond naming the resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_entities' or other asset-related operations. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all entities' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it's paginated, what format the output takes, if there are permissions required, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'entities' are, how results are returned, or how this differs from other listing operations. For a tool in a complex environment with 18 siblings, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but that's appropriate since there are none. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all entities' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('entities'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'entities' are in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_assets' or 'query_scene_settings', leaving ambiguity about scope and boundaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_assets', 'query_scene_settings', and 'create_entities', there's no indication of when listing entities is appropriate versus other listing or creation operations, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether modifications are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when modifying non-existent properties. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after modification, error handling, permissions needed, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The context demands more comprehensive guidance than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'properties' which aligns with the 'edits' parameter in the schema, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the 100% schema coverage already provides. The schema fully documents the structure, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('modify') and resource ('one or more entity's properties'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'reparent_entity' or 'set_script_text' which also modify entities in different ways, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'modify_scene_settings', 'set_material_diffuse', and 'reparent_entity' that also perform modifications, there's no indication of when this general-purpose entity property modifier is appropriate versus more specialized tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing properties, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or side effects, and while the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking. This makes it inadequate for a tool that modifies assets.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (assetId and color). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the color affects the material or what assetId refers to. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set') and the resource ('diffuse property on a material'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., modify_entities or modify_scene_settings), which might also affect material properties, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_entities or other material-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing material or asset, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete'), but doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletions are permanent or reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or any rate limits. The root entity constraint is useful, but overall behavioral context is minimal for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, error responses), permissions needed, or how to verify deletions. The root entity constraint is helpful, but overall completeness is poor given the tool's complexity and lack of structured support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'ids' parameter (array of UUIDs, minItems: 1). The description repeats the root entity constraint already in the schema description, adding no new parameter semantics. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('entities'), specifying it can handle multiple entities ('one or more'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_assets' by focusing on entities rather than assets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations like 'remove_components' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one explicit exclusion ('The root entity cannot be deleted'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_assets' or 'remove_components', nor does it mention prerequisites or recovery options. The guidance is implied but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists assets, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all assets') and adds necessary detail ('with the option to filter by type'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output schema information (not provided) and behavioral details like pagination or error handling, which are important for a list operation. However, it covers the basic purpose and parameter context sufficiently for minimal viability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions filtering by type, which aligns with the single parameter in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter has a clear description and enum values), the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('assets'), and specifies the filtering capability ('with the option to filter by type'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_assets' or 'delete_assets' by indicating a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'list_entities'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving assets, possibly when needing to view available resources, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_entities' or 'store_search'. It mentions filtering by type, which hints at context, but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![editor-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/playcanvas/editor-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/playcanvas/editor-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![editor-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/playcanvas/editor-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/playcanvas/editor-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/playcanvas/editor-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server