Creates and configures global illumination in the Godot scene, either as VoxelGI or LightmapGI, specifying parent path and optional size.
Create/configure VoxelGI or LightmapGI
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Node name | |
| size | No | Extents size {x,y,z} | |
| giType | Yes | Type: voxel_gi or lightmap_gi | |
| parentPath | Yes | Parent node path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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/configure' hints at mutation but does not clarify whether the node is added to the scene, whether it modifies existing nodes, whether changes are persistent, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a creation/configuring tool.
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 concise phrase with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but it earns slightly less than a 5 because the brevity leaves out useful context that could be expressed without bloat.
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?
Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It lacks context about required parameters, behavior on existing nodes, effects on the scene, and when this tool is appropriate compared to related siblings.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description connects giType to VoxelGI/LightmapGI but does not add deeper meaning beyond what the schema provides, landing at the baseline score.
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 clear action ('Create/configure') and specific resources ('VoxelGI or LightmapGI'), making the tool's domain obvious. It is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling lighting tools like game_light_3d or game_environment, though 'configure' is somewhat generic.
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 creating or configuring global illumination nodes, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as generic node creation tools or other lighting tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.