Godot MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate this is a mutable, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), which the description aligns with by describing a 'move' that preserves transforms. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the operation occurs 'within the same scene' (scope constraint) and details the 'keep_global_transform' behavior (default true), which are not captured in annotations.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement upfront, followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids redundancy, though the Args section slightly repeats schema info. Every sentence adds value (e.g., clarifying transform behavior and return value), but could be more front-loaded by integrating key details into the opening sentence.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return value. It includes behavioral details (scene scope, transform preservation) and annotations provide safety context. However, it lacks error conditions (e.g., invalid paths) or side effects (e.g., impact on node references), leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it restates parameter purposes in the Args section but doesn't elaborate on semantics like path format requirements or transform preservation implications. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Moves a node to a new parent'), the resource ('within the same scene'), and a key behavioral detail ('preserving its world transform'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'godot_remove_node' (deletion) and 'godot_set_node_property' (property modification) by focusing on hierarchical restructuring.

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 implies usage for node hierarchy changes within a scene, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'godot_remove_node' followed by 'godot_add_node', or prerequisites such as ensuring parent/child compatibility. The optional 'scene_path' parameter hints at context (active vs. specific scenes), but no when-not-to-use rules are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.