Spawn any Godot node type at runtime, specifying its class, name, parent, and custom properties.
Create a new node of any type at runtime
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the new node. Default: auto-generated | |
| type | Yes | Node class name (e.g. "Sprite2D", "CharacterBody3D") | |
| parentPath | No | Parent node path. Default: "/root" | |
| properties | No | Properties to set on the new node |
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. It discloses the core action and runtime context but omits side effects such as the node entering the scene tree, lifecycle callbacks, ownership, return values, or prerequisites.
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. It is concise and readable, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.
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 runtime mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is under-specified. Missing context includes what the tool returns, whether the game must already be running, and how the new node is integrated into the scene tree.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds only the generic 'any type' emphasis and does not meaningfully extend the parameter information already present in the schema.
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 the verb 'Create', the resource 'node', and the scope 'any type at runtime'. This distinguishes it from scene-editing tools like add_node and from instantiation tools like game_instantiate_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 phrase 'at runtime' implies this is for dynamic node creation during a running game, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. With many sibling tools, more routing guidance would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.