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 states the action is equivalent to pressing the stop button, which suggests it halts execution but does not disclose behavioral details like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, or potential side effects (e.g., unsaved changes). This leaves gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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 ('Stop the running Godot project') and adds clarifying context ('Equivalent to pressing the stop button') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 complexity (a mutation to stop a project), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on outcomes (e.g., what happens after stopping, error conditions) or prerequisites, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 ('stop') and resource ('running Godot project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'forge_run_project' (which starts the project) and 'forge_status' (which checks status). The analogy to pressing the stop button reinforces the purpose effectively.

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 'running Godot project'—this tool should be used when a project is actively running. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if no project is running) or name alternatives like 'forge_status' to check if stopping is applicable, which prevents a perfect score.

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