Reads an actor's display label from the current Unreal Engine level using its name or outliner label. Use it to verify labels without changing the actor.
Read an actor's display label from the level (reader twin of set_actor_label)
Returns: { actor_name: string, actor_label: string }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor_name | Yes | Actor name or label in the world outliner |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the return shape ({ actor_name, actor_label }) and that the value comes from the level, which is useful context beyond the annotations.
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?
Two tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return shape as a compact trailing clause. No filler, and the sibling reference is placed where it is most useful for routing.
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 single-parameter read tool with a fully annotated safety profile, the description covers purpose, sibling relationship, and return shape. Since no output schema exists, documenting the returned fields is exactly what was needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single actor_name parameter is fully documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter format or accepted values, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Read an actor's display label from the level") and explicitly positions itself as the "reader twin of set_actor_label", so the agent can distinguish the read direction from the write sibling 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase "reader twin of set_actor_label" routes the agent to the correct tool for the write direction, giving clear context for when this tool applies. It does not spell out any exclusions or edge cases, but the read/write pairing is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.