ultimate-construct3-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_examples

Search Construct 3 documentation for code examples and snippets by query, with language and result limit options, to find implementation references for concepts like collision, tween, or spawn.

Instructions

Search for code examples and snippets from the Construct 3 documentation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "get_examples"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lang`	No	Language code (default: en)
`limit`	No	Max results (default: 10)
`query`	Yes	Search query for code examples (e.g. 'collision', 'tween', 'spawn')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers only one sentence. It does not disclose result ranking, what a returned snippet contains (title? code block? source URL?), whether results are truncated or paginated, or how the lang parameter affects matching.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the resource type appears early. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Three well-documented parameters and no output schema mean the description should at least characterize the return shape for a search tool, which it does not. It is minimally adequate to call the tool but leaves an agent guessing about result format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so query, lang, and limit are already documented including defaults and bounds. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior (e.g. whether lang filters or translates results), so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('code examples and snippets') plus source scope ('Construct 3 documentation'), which differentiates it from generic doc-reading siblings like search_docs and get_doc. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the resource type: reach for this when you need runnable snippets rather than prose docs. There is no explicit when/when-not statement and no mention of search_docs, get_ace_reference, or get_doc as alternatives for related needs.

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

Deploy Server