Attach a GDScript to a given node in a Godot scene. Requires project, scene, node path, and script path to add custom behavior.
Attach a GDScript to a scene node (headless)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the node within the scene (e.g., "root/Player") | |
| scenePath | Yes | Scene file path (relative to project) | |
| scriptPath | Yes | Path to the .gd script file (relative to project) | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation runs headless and implies a mutation, but it does not state that the scene file is modified, whether an existing script attachment is replaced, or whether the change is persistent. For a mutating tool this is a significant gap.
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 filler; 'Attach a GDScript to a scene node' immediately conveys the operation and '(headless)' adds the key execution mode. The brevity is appropriate for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.
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 four-parameter tool with full schema coverage the basic call is well specified, and 'headless' provides useful execution context. However, the lack of side-effect disclosure—what gets written, whether the operation can overwrite—and the absence of an output schema leaves the agent without a complete mental model.
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 all four parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the necessary work.
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 and resource: attaching a GDScript to a scene node. The 'headless' qualifier and the verb distinguish it from sibling tools like create_script and modify_scene_node, so an agent can tell it apart.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as create_script or modify_scene_node, and no mention of prerequisites like the script already existing or the scene being open. The only hint is 'headless', which implies non-interactive use rather than a clear selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.