Create Path3D nodes and manipulate curve points for 3D path animation or navigation.
Create Path3D/Curve3D and manage curve points
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Node name | |
| point | No | Single point {x,y,z} | |
| action | Yes | Action: create, add_point, set_points, get_points | |
| points | No | Array of points [{x,y,z},...] | |
| nodePath | No | Path3D node path (for add/set/get) | |
| parentPath | No | Parent node path |
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 summarizes operations but does not disclose whether set_points overwrites existing points, whether create mutates the scene tree, what side effects occur, or what the result of get_points looks like.
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 or redundancy. It earns its place but is terse; a little more structure around the available actions would improve it without adding 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?
This tool has six parameters, four distinct actions, and nested point objects, yet no output schema or annotations. The one-line description cannot equip an agent with the per-action semantics, required fields, or return behavior needed to invoke it confidently.
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%: all six parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level 'manage curve points' statement and does not clarify action-specific requirements like nodePath being needed for add/set/get.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Create Path3D/Curve3D and manage curve points.' The 3D qualifier clearly distinguishes it from the sibling game_path_2d, so an agent can tell them apart at a glance.
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 context is implied by naming the Path3D/Curve3D resource, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not tell the agent when to choose this over game_path_2d or navigation-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.