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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get'), which implies it is non-destructive, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as performance considerations, error handling if no scene is open, or the format of the returned tree. The description adds basic context but lacks depth on operational details.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key details.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or dependencies like requiring an open scene. For a read-only tool with zero parameters, it is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. It adds value by clarifying the scope of retrieval (nodes, types, hierarchy), but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameter info.

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 specific action ('Get'), the resource ('full scene tree of the currently open scene in Godot'), and the scope ('including all nodes, their types, and hierarchy'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like forge_get_properties or forge_get_script by focusing on the scene hierarchy rather than properties, scripts, or other aspects.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'currently open scene,' suggesting it should be used when a scene is loaded and active. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like forge_list_files for file-level information or forge_get_properties for node properties, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an open scene first.

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