Load a scene from a resource path and instantiate it as a child of a specified node in the running game.
Load a PackedScene and add it as a child of a node in the running game
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenePath | Yes | Resource path to the scene (e.g., "res://scenes/enemy.tscn") | |
| parentPath | No | Path to the parent node. Default: "/root" |
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 behavioral transparency burden. It does clearly state the core runtime side effect: loading a scene and adding it as a child node. However, it does not disclose error behavior, what happens if parentPath is invalid, whether a new instance is created each call, or whether the added node is removed when the scene changes.
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 well-structured sentence that states the operation immediately. Every word adds useful meaning, with no filler or redundant text.
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 tool is simple and the schema covers its parameters, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention return behavior or failure cases, and it does not provide routing guidance relative to similar runtime-scene tools.
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%, and both scenePath and parentPath already have meaningful descriptions with a default for parentPath. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('PackedScene') and clearly states the resulting action: 'add it as a child of a node in the running game'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_scene (file-level reading) and game_change_scene (switching the current scene).
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 intended usage is implied by the action: use this when you need to instantiate a PackedScene into the live scene tree. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as game_spawn_node, game_change_scene, or create_scene.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.