Retrieve the Unreal Editor's active culture and locale, returning its name, display name, native name, and ISO code for use in localization-aware workflows.
Read the editor's current active culture/locale (FInternationalization::GetCurrentCulture).
Returns: { culture_name: string, display_name: string, native_name: string, iso_two_letter_name: string }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact return shape (culture_name, display_name, native_name, iso_two_letter_name) despite no output schema existing, which helps the agent understand the result.
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 front-loaded with the core action and is extremely economical: one sentence for the operation plus a compact return shape. Every element 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?
For a zero-parameter read-only getter with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It supplies the return structure that would otherwise be missing and does not need to explain parameters or error behavior.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details because none are needed.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the editor's current active culture/locale', and names the underlying function FInternationalization::GetCurrentCulture. It clearly distinguishes itself from a setter like set_active_culture, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling get_culture_info.
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 use case is implied by the tool name and description: retrieve the current active culture. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_culture_info or other localization tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.