Skip to main content
Glama

clear_procedural_mesh

DestructiveIdempotent

Empty one or all geometry sections of a UProceduralMeshComponent on an editor actor found by label, then rebuild its bounds and collision.

Instructions

Empty the geometry of one section, or drop every section, of a UProceduralMeshComponent on an editor-world actor found by label, then rebuild its bounds and collision. A single cleared section keeps its slot (remaining_sections unchanged); with section_index omitted or -1 all sections go. Transient: nothing is marked dirty, saved or undoable. A missing actor or component_index is an error, and so is a section_index past the end or below -1. remove_procedural_mesh_component deletes the component itself.

Returns: { actor_label: string, section_cleared: int, remaining_sections: int }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actor_labelYesEditor label of the actor carrying the PMC
section_indexNoOptional 0-based section to empty; omit it, or pass -1, to drop all sections
component_indexNoOptional 0-based PMC index on the actor; defaults to 0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / section_index / description
      Previous value: -"Optional target section; defaults to INDEX_NONE (clear all)"New value: +"Optional 0-based section to empty; omit it, or pass -1, to drop all sections"
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent/not read-only), the description discloses that the operation is transient (nothing dirty, saved, or undoable), that it rebuilds bounds and collision, that a cleared section keeps its slot, and enumerates error conditions (missing actor, bad component_index, out-of-range section_index). That is substantive behavioral context annotations alone cannot convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loads the core action, then edge-case semantics, transience, and error conditions in compact sentences, ending with the inline return shape. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

For a destructive editor mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, section-slot semantics, transience/undo behavior, error cases, the sibling alternative, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: a single cleared section keeps its slot (remaining_sections unchanged) and the -1 sentinel for dropping all, clarifying the meaning of section_index. The component_index default is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Empty/drop) and resource (geometry of sections of a UProceduralMeshComponent), plus the locating mechanism (actor found by label). It explicitly distinguishes itself from remove_procedural_mesh_component, which deletes the component itself, so an agent can route correctly among the procedural-mesh siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear conditions: single section_idx to empty one section, omit/-1 to drop all, and points to remove_procedural_mesh_component when the component itself should be deleted. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use this tool beyond that one alternative, but context is strong.

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