Attach, detach, or retrieve the source code of scripts attached to any node.
Attach, detach, or get source of node scripts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action: attach, detach, get_source | |
| source | No | GDScript source code (for attach) | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the node | |
| className | No | Class the script extends |
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. It states what the tool does at a high level but does not explain side effects of detaching, whether modifications persist to files, what get_source returns, or any failure/error behavior. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a tool that mutates node state.
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 zero filler. It efficiently captures the tool's scope in ten words and every word contributes meaning.
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 tool with four parameters, three distinct operations, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It omits return values, side effects, configuration expectations, and relationship to overlapping tools like attach_script, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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 adds a compact summary of the three action values, which reinforces the action parameter's meaning but does not add substantive detail beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 clearly identifies the tool as managing node scripts through three distinct verbs: attach, detach, and get source. It is specific about the resource (node scripts), but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool attach_script, which overlaps with the attach operation.
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 lists supported actions but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attach_script, or when detach/get_source would be appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.