Skip to main content
Glama

get_mass_entity_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect a Mass entity in the editor world by handle to retrieve its validity, built state, archetype ID, and fragment types.

Instructions

Inspect one Mass entity of the editor world (not PIE) by handle, read-only: valid, built, archetype_id and the fragment types of its archetype. A destroyed or unknown handle returns valid:false rather than an error; a malformed handle is an error.

Returns: { entity_handle, valid, built, archetype_id, fragment_count, fragment_types: [string] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_handleYesEntity handle as "Index:SerialNumber", two integers such as "12:3" (no braces)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / entity_handle / description
      Previous value: -"\"{Index}:{SerialNumber}\""New value: +"Entity handle as \"Index:SerialNumber\", two integers such as \"12:3\" (no braces)"
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: a destroyed/unknown handle yields valid:false rather than an error, while a malformed handle raises an error. That error-taxonomy distinction is exactly the kind of behavioral detail structured fields do not 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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads purpose, scope, and returned fields, the second captures error semantics. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the return shape and explains the success/failure split for bad handles. For a single-parameter read tool this is fully sufficient.

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%, and the single parameter's 'Index:SerialNumber' format is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (inspect) and resource (one Mass entity) and scopes it precisely to the editor world rather than PIE. An agent can distinguish it from sibling mass tools like query_mass_entities or count_mass_entities 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The '(not PIE)' qualifier and the 'by handle' phrasing give clear context for when this tool applies, effectively excluding the PIE world. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g. query_mass_entities) to find entities first, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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