Forge Engine MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool adds a node but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., scene modification), or error conditions (e.g., invalid parent paths). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. It uses two sentences efficiently: one for the main action and parameters, and another for optional properties. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens on success/failure), doesn't explain the return values or potential errors, and provides minimal guidance. For a tool that modifies a scene tree, more completeness is needed to aid an AI agent effectively.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the three required parameters (parent path, node type, name) and implying the optional 'properties' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a new node') and resource ('to the Godot scene tree'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'forge_move_node' and 'forge_remove_node' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'forge_set_property' for property setting).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this creates nodes, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open scene), when not to use it (e.g., for modifying existing nodes), or explicit alternatives among siblings like 'forge_set_property' for property updates. The description assumes context without stating it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.