Read or modify Godot resource files (.tres/.res) by specifying the project path, resource path, and action. Modify properties such as textures or scripts to adjust game assets.
Read or modify .tres/.res resource files
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action: read or modify | |
| properties | No | Properties to modify | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path | |
| resourcePath | Yes | Resource file path (relative to project) |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'read or modify' but does not explain whether modification is in-place, how properties are merged or replaced, what side effects occur, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a mutation-capable tool.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target, containing no filler. It is concise without being purely tautological, though the brevity contributes to missing behavioral context.
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 has a nested properties object and no output schema, so the agent needs more context about modify semantics and return values. The description provides none of this, making it too thin for fully confident invocation in a large sibling toolset.
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 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and details like the exact allowed action values or the shape of the properties object are left unstated.
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 verb pair (read or modify) and a specific resource type (.tres/.res files), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate among sibling tools like read_file/write_file or create_resource, but the resource-scoped wording is sufficiently specific.
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 about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as read_file, write_file, create_resource, or manage_theme_resource. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from file extensions alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.