Parses GameTarget and EditorTarget *.Build.cs files referenced by a .flaxproj to extract target class names and referenced modules for Flax Engine project configuration.
Parses the GameTarget/EditorTarget *.Build.cs files referenced from the .flaxproj: target class names and referenced modules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gameTarget | Yes | ||
| editorTarget | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with 'Parses', so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the source of truth (.flaxproj-referenced Build.cs files), but says nothing about behavior when the .flaxproj or target files are missing, or whether parsing happens live per call.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the output content is stated up front. Slightly dense phrasing but nothing wasted.
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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the input source and extracted data. The main shortfall is the absence of failure-mode or usage context, which is minor for a read-only zero-arg tool.
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?
Zero-parameter tool, so baseline is 4; there is nothing in the schema the description needs to compensate for.
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?
States a specific verb ('Parses') and a specific resource ('GameTarget/EditorTarget *.Build.cs files referenced from the .flaxproj'), plus what is extracted (target class names, referenced modules). The resource is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings like project_info or build_generate_projects, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 statement of when to call this versus project_info, project_settings, or build_generate_projects, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Use is only implied by the resource it reads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.