Set, get, clear cells on a GridMap node and retrieve a list of used cells coordinates.
GridMap set/get/clear cells and query used cells
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | Cell X coordinate | |
| y | No | Cell Y coordinate | |
| z | No | Cell Z coordinate | |
| item | No | MeshLibrary item index | |
| action | Yes | Action: set_cell, get_cell, clear, get_used | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to GridMap node | |
| orientation | No | Cell orientation index |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It conveys that set and clear mutate cells while get and get_used query them, but it does not clarify whether 'clear' clears one cell or the whole map, how queries return results, or what state changes are involved.
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 extremely compact, with no filler and the resource type front-loaded. The telegraphic style 'GridMap set/get/clear cells and query used cells' is clear enough, though a complete sentence would improve readability without much added length.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain per-action parameter requirements (e.g., set_cell needs coordinates and item, while get_used does not) and what query actions return. The current text is too sparse for an agent to reliably construct valid calls beyond selecting an action name.
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%, with each parameter already documented including the action enum values and coordinate/item meanings. The description adds only the high-level grouping 'cells', so it stays at the schema baseline without adding meaningful new parameter semantics.
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 identifies GridMap as the resource and enumerates the operations performed: set, get, clear, and query used cells. It is clearly about manipulating GridMap cell data and distinguishable from sibling tools like game_tilemap or game_canvas. It is a noun phrase rather than a full verb phrase, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor which action is appropriate for different scenarios. The description relies entirely on the action enum in the schema to convey use cases, with no conditions, exclusions, or contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.