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 mentions 'execute arbitrary GDScript code' and 'in the editor context', but lacks details on behavioral traits: e.g., whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on errors, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 two short sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds usage context. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning its place efficiently.

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 (executing arbitrary code is a powerful, potentially risky operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. It doesn't cover safety, return values, error handling, or how it integrates with the editor context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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% (the 'code' parameter is fully described in the schema as 'GDScript code to execute'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as syntax examples or constraints, so it meets the minimum but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Execute arbitrary GDScript code') and the context ('in the editor context'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like forge_run_project (which runs the full project) or forge_evaluate (which might evaluate expressions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like forge_set_script or forge_get_script, keeping 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 provides some usage context ('Useful for quick automation tasks'), which implies when to use it, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for one-off scripts vs. persistent changes, or how it differs from forge_evaluate. This is implied guidance, not explicit.

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