Modify node properties in a Godot scene file by specifying project, scene, node path, and key-value property changes.
Modify node properties in a scene file (headless)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodePath | Yes | Path to the node within the scene (e.g., "root/Player/Sprite2D") | |
| scenePath | Yes | Scene file path (relative to project) | |
| properties | Yes | Properties to set on the node as key-value pairs | |
| 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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a write operation but does not disclose whether the scene file is saved automatically, whether properties are merged or overwritten, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on invalid node/property paths.
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?
One short declarative sentence with no filler. The key scope ('headless', scene file, node properties) is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 simple 4-parameter tool, the schema covers parameter semantics and the description covers the execution mode. Missing details are the write/persist semantics and how 'properties' are applied, which an agent would need to fully predict side effects.
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; all four parameters (projectPath, scenePath, nodePath, properties) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general context that node properties are being modified, without offering additional value beyond 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 ('Modify'), a specific resource ('node properties in a scene file'), and the headless execution mode. This clearly distinguishes it from runtime tools like game_set_property and structural tools like add_node or remove_scene_node.
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 parenthetical '(headless)' clearly indicates this operates on scene files outside the running game, which is useful context for selecting it over runtime property setters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.