Skip to main content
Glama

get_decal_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the full UDecalComponent state (size, sort order, fade timing, color, material) of a named DecalActor to inspect or debug decals.

Instructions

Read the full UDecalComponent state (size, sort order, fade screen size, fade-out/in timing, color, material) of a named DecalActor.

Returns: { actor_label: string, actor_name: string, decal_size_x: float, decal_size_y: float, decal_size_z: float, sort_order: int, fade_screen_size: float, fade_start_delay: float, fade_duration: float, fade_in_start_delay: float, fade_in_duration: float, destroy_owner_after_fade: bool, r: float, g: float, b: float, a: float, decal_material: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actor_labelYesLabel of the ADecalActor in the editor world.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. The description reinforces 'Read ... of a named DecalActor', which confirms read-only semantics but adds little behavioral context beyond listing return fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending in a complete explicit return shape. The field list is long but functional; no filler prose. Slightly verbose but every element is informative.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so describing the exact return object (all fields and types) is genuinely valuable and compensates for the missing output schema. It omits error/not-found behavior, keeping it a 4 rather than 5.

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% with one parameter, so the schema already documents actor_label as the label of the ADecalActor. The description repeats 'of a named DecalActor' without adding format, lookup, or error semantics. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Read) and resource (UDecalComponent state) on a named DecalActor, and enumerates the exact fields read. Clearly distinguishable from sibling get_* inspector tools by naming the decal component and its specific properties.

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?

Implicit usage: an agent infers this reads decal state, and the required actor_label makes the precondition (a named DecalActor must exist) discoverable. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to the sibling set_decal_* tools for the write side.

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