Exports a local audio asset to a specified, authorized Godot project root and relative path, with optional overwrite and profile settings, while enforcing ALLOWED_ROOTS.
Export one local audio asset to an explicitly supplied and authorized Godot project root. Requires that project root to be within ALLOWED_ROOTS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| input_path | Yes | ||
| project_root | Yes | ||
| relative_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses that this is a write into an authorized location and that only one asset is handled per call. It omits overwrite behavior, whether existing files are replaced or errors are returned, and whether directories are created. That leaves meaningful mutation semantics unstated.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope. Nothing is padding, though the ALLOWED_ROOTS reference is unexplained jargon.
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?
This is a mutating export tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation. The description should at minimum cover overwrite semantics, what profile values mean, and how relative_path is resolved; none of that is present.
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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning only for project_root (must be within ALLOWED_ROOTS); input_path, relative_path, overwrite, and the profile enum values are left entirely undefined.
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: exporting a single local audio asset into a Godot project root. It is clearly distinguishable from all sibling generation/processing tools. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting scope, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.
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?
It gives one prerequisite (the project root must fall within ALLOWED_ROOTS) but no guidance on when to choose this over other asset workflows, or when not to. Usage is implied by the naming rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.