List or assign custom names to layers for render, physics 2D/3D, and navigation. Organize project layer definitions with name and number.
List/set named layer definitions in project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Layer name | |
| layer | No | Layer number (1-32) | |
| action | Yes | Action: list or set | |
| layerType | No | Type: render, physics_2d, physics_3d, navigation | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project 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 provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. Saying 'set' implies mutation and 'list' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not mention side effects on project files, reversibility, errors, or what happens when a named layer already exists. This is thin for a tool that can modify project 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 compact sentence with no filler. The primary actions are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is appropriately terse for a straightforward tool.
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 invocation context unspecified: which parameters are required for each action, return behavior for 'list,' and whether 'set' overwrites or appends layer definitions. The schema provides parameter names but not the action-conditioned logic needed to use the tool correctly.
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 five parameters. The description adds the concept of 'named layer definitions' but does not clarify conditional parameter requirements, such as which parameters are needed for 'list' versus 'set.' It neither significantly compensates for nor detracts from 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List/set named layer definitions in project.' It is clear about the two actions and the project-level scope, and the resource is distinct from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, and 'named layer definitions' assumes Godot-specific knowledge.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_autoloads, manage_input_map, or other project configuration tools. No prerequisites, conditional actions, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.