Forge Engine MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires the editor to be running, potential rate limits, or what format the output returns (e.g., plain text, structured logs). This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with an editor console.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves console output. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., errors, logs, timestamps), how 'recent' is defined, or prerequisites like needing the Godot editor to be active. For a development/debugging tool, this leaves critical context unspecified.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'lines' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'recent' output, which is already suggested by the parameter's purpose. This 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 action ('Get') and target ('recent console output from the Godot editor'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like forge_get_properties or forge_get_script, which also retrieve information but from different sources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like debugging, monitoring project execution, or how it relates to siblings like forge_run_project or forge_status, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit direction.

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