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 indicates the tool initiates gameplay, implying a state change (from stopped to running), but does not detail effects like whether it halts other processes, requires specific project states, or has side effects. It adds some context (the F5 analogy) but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the core action ('Run the Godot project') and add clarifying analogy. Every word earns its place with no waste, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete for its purpose. It explains what the tool does and provides a relatable analogy. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential outcomes or errors, but the lack of complexity makes this less critical.

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 parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's action, though it could slightly improve by noting the lack of parameters explicitly.

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 ('Run the Godot project') and the resource ('the game'), with a helpful analogy ('Equivalent to pressing F5 in the editor') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'forge_stop_project' or 'forge_status'. It precisely communicates what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 referencing the editor's F5 key, suggesting it's for starting gameplay during development. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forge_stop_project' or 'forge_execute_gdscript', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open project). This provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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