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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool evaluates an expression in a debug session, but doesn't describe what happens after evaluation (e.g., returns a value, logs output, affects state), potential side effects, error handling, or any constraints like session requirements. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, with no wasted information.

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 of a debug evaluation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are handled, or any behavioral traits like dependencies on an active debug session. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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?

The description implies the parameter is a GDScript expression to evaluate, but the input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'expression' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema, such as expression syntax examples or evaluation context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: evaluating a GDScript expression during a debug session. It specifies the verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'GDScript expression', making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like forge_execute_gdscript, which might also involve GDScript execution.

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 description provides minimal usage guidance, stating it's for 'during a debug session' but not explaining when to use this tool versus alternatives like forge_execute_gdscript or forge_set_breakpoint. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent with little direction.

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