Set a property on a node in a running Godot game by specifying the node path, property name, and value. Supports optional type hints for vectors and colors.
Set a property on a node in the running game
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Value to set. Use objects for vectors/colors | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the node | |
| property | Yes | Property name to set | |
| typeHint | No | Optional type hint: "Vector2", "Vector3", "Color" |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set a property' and 'in the running game' — it does not disclose whether changes are temporary, whether invalid properties cause errors, whether values are coerced, or what happens if the node path does not exist. For a mutating tool, this leaves important behavior unclear.
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 sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and scope, but it is slightly too terse to earn a 5 because it omits useful behavioral context that could have been added without much 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?
The tool is a simple runtime setter with a well-documented schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no mention of failure modes, return values, or whether the property change persists only for the current session. Given the abundance of sibling runtime mutation tools, a bit more context would improve completeness.
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 parameter details are already fully documented in the input schema, including the type hint options and the guidance to use objects for vectors/colors. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('a property on a node'), and a clear scope ('in the running game'). This distinguishes it from scene-editing tools like modify_scene_node and read-side tools like game_get_property, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_tween_property, game_set_shader_param, or modify_scene_node. The phrase 'in the running game' implies a runtime context, but the description does not state when this tool is preferred or when another tool should be chosen instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.