Manage PopupMenu and MenuBar items: add, remove, get items, set checked state, or clear by specifying node path and action.
PopupMenu/MenuBar: add/remove/get menu items
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Item ID | |
| text | No | Item text (for add) | |
| index | No | Item index | |
| action | Yes | Action: get_items, add, remove, set_checked, clear | |
| checked | No | Checked state | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to PopupMenu/MenuBar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions add/remove/get but omits the set_checked and clear actions from the description, and does not explain side effects, destructive behavior, or return values for get_items.
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 compact line with a clear resource prefix and action list. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though it is terse enough that some key behaviors are left out.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important context unexplained: the clear action's destructive effect, the meaning of checked state, and what get_items returns. The schema covers parameter names but the overall tool behavior is not complete enough for complex menu manipulation.
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 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only a high-level summary of actions and does not enrich the meaning of id, index, checked, or text beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for full coverage.
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 names a specific resource type (PopupMenu/MenuBar) and concrete operations (add/remove/get menu items). It is clear enough for an agent to generally identify what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast it with closely related siblings like game_ui_popup.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_ui_popup or game_ui_control. The intended context is only implied by the resource name, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.