Skip to main content
Glama

append_mesh_primitive

Adds Box, Sphere, Cylinder, or Cone primitives to a DynamicMeshActor's live mesh without replacing existing geometry, ideal for iterative editor mesh building.

Instructions

Append a Box, Sphere, Cylinder or Cone to the live dynamic mesh of a DynamicMeshActor in the editor world, keeping the geometry already there: size is the box edge or the diameter and height of the round shapes, centred at location in mesh-local space. Each call adds another copy, inside an editor transaction; nothing is saved to an asset. An unknown actor or primitive is an error; appended is true when the triangle count grew. To merge another actor's mesh use append_mesh_to_dynamic_mesh; to persist the result, copy_dynamic_mesh_to_static_mesh.

Returns: { actor_name: string, primitive: string, size: number, material_id: int, triangle_count: int, triangles_added: int, vertex_count: int, appended: bool }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNoDominant dimension in cm, default 100
locationNoOptional local [x, y, z] offset for the primitive
primitiveNoBox, Sphere, Cylinder, or Cone, default Box
actor_nameYesLabel or name of the target DynamicMeshActor
dimensionsNoFallback alias for size when size is omitted (cm)
material_idNoOptional MaterialID stamped on the appended triangles (default 0). Non-zero enables the mesh MaterialID attribute first, so a later copy_dynamic_mesh_to_static_mesh (bUseSectionMaterials=true) emits this piece as its own section/material slot. This is how one dynamic mesh becomes a multi-slot static mesh.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavior: each call adds another copy inside an editor transaction, nothing is saved to an asset, unknown inputs error out, and 'appended' is true only when the triangle count grew. It stops short of stating performance or memory implications.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the sizing/coordinate semantics, then the sibling routing, then the return shape. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the inline Returns block is valuable given there is no output schema, though the overall run-on phrasing could be tightened.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the meaning of 'appended', covers the required actor precondition, error behavior, transaction/non-persistence semantics, and routes to both related tools. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'size' is the box edge for a Box and the diameter/height for the round shapes, and that 'location' is interpreted in mesh-local space. The material_id/multi-slot behavior is already spelled out in the schema, so this is additive rather than compensating.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a precise verb (append) and resource (Box/Sphere/Cylinder/Cone primitive) plus the target (live dynamic mesh of a DynamicMeshActor in the editor world), and explicitly notes that existing geometry is preserved. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling append_mesh_to_dynamic_mesh and copy_static_mesh_to_dynamic_mesh without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names both alternatives with the selecting condition: use append_mesh_to_dynamic_mesh to merge another actor's mesh, and copy_dynamic_mesh_to_static_mesh to persist. It also states the precondition (a live DynamicMeshActor in the editor world) and that unknown actors/primitives are an error.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools