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 states the tool retrieves editable properties, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns partial data on errors, or how it handles invalid node paths. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all editable properties') and includes relevant examples. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieving node properties), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what properties are retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or output format. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, it provides basic context but leaves gaps that could hinder effective use.

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 adds no specific meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'nodePath' as 'Path of the node to inspect,' and the description doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, formats, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Get all editable properties of a node in the scene' with specific examples (position, rotation, scale, type-specific properties). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('node in the scene'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like forge_get_scene_tree or forge_get_signals, which might also retrieve node-related information.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an open scene), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like forge_get_scene_tree (which might list nodes) or forge_set_property (which modifies properties). Usage is implied through the action 'Get all editable properties,' but no explicit context is given.

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