Trigger a signal on a node in the running game with optional arguments to control game behavior.
Emit a signal on a node in the running game, optionally with arguments
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | Optional arguments to pass with the signal | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the node | |
| signalName | Yes | Name of the signal to emit |
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 states that a signal is emitted and that arguments may be passed, but it does not disclose that connected handlers will execute as side effects, that the node and signal must already exist, or what happens on invalid input. For a runtime-triggering tool with no annotation safety hints, this is under-disclosed.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase—'emit', 'signal', 'node', 'running game', and 'optionally with arguments'—earns its place and contributes to actionable understanding.
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 3-parameter tool, the description plus schema provides enough to make a plausible call, but it omits realistic preconditions such as requiring an existing node and a valid signal name, as well as the fact that emission can trigger arbitrary game code. There is no output schema, yet the description still does not explain expected success or failure behavior, leaving a moderate completeness gap.
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?
The input schema already describes all three parameters clearly, so the description does not need to restate them. The phrase 'optionally with arguments' reinforces the optional args parameter, but no additional meaning is added about nodePath format, signalName validity, or argument ordering and types. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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 precise action ('emit'), a specific target ('a signal on a node'), and the execution context ('in the running game'), plus optional arguments. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like game_connect_signal, game_await_signal, and game_list_signals.
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 verb 'emit' and the phrase 'running game' imply runtime triggering rather than scene-editing or signal setup. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_call_method or game_connect_signal, and it offers no 'when not to use' caveats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.