Create a Godot .tres resource file by specifying the resource type, file path, and any optional properties.
Create a .tres resource file (headless)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| properties | No | Optional properties to set on the resource | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path | |
| resourcePath | Yes | Where to save the .tres file (relative to project) | |
| resourceType | Yes | Godot class name (e.g., "StandardMaterial3D", "Theme", "Environment") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but only states that a .tres file is created. It does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, what happens with invalid resource types, or what the function returns.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, and the key distinction (.tres resource file) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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?
The schema covers all four parameters adequately, so an agent can construct valid arguments. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description leaves out behavior (overwrite semantics, errors, return values) and usage context, making it only minimally complete for a file-creation tool.
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%: projectPath, resourceType, resourcePath, and properties all have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific action and object: 'Create a .tres resource file (headless)'. It clearly identifies the resource type (.tres) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_scene, create_script, or save_scene without needing to open their schemas.
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 manage_resource, create_scene, or save_scene. The phrase 'headless' hints at a CI/automation context but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.