Forge Engine MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Open') but doesn't explain what 'Open' entails—e.g., whether it loads the scene for editing, triggers UI changes, requires the editor to be running, or has side effects like locking the file. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that performs an 'Open' operation. It doesn't cover what happens after opening (e.g., success/failure states, editor response, or error handling), leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper invocation and interpretation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'path' fully documented in the schema as 'Path to the .tscn scene file'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 action ('Open') and the target resource ('a scene file in the Godot editor'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'forge_get_scene_tree' or 'forge_save_scene', which also involve scene operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for editing scenes versus just viewing them, or how it relates to tools like 'forge_get_scene_tree' or 'forge_save_scene'.

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