Skip to main content
Glama

get_message_log_entries

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read entries from a named Unreal Engine Message Log and resolve each message to the actor or component that emitted it, optionally filtered by severity.

Instructions

Read back the messages currently in a named engine Message Log listing (IMessageLogListing::GetFilteredMessages), each resolved back to the actor/component the engine attached to it. The reader that pairs with add_message_log_entry/clear_message_log.

Returns: { log_name: string, severity_filter: string|null, base_libraries: [string], entries: [{message: string, severity: string, token_source: string, object_path: string, object_resolved: bool, actor_name: string, actor_label: string, actor_path: string, actor_class: string, actor_guid: string, component_name: string, class_asset_path: string, class_root: string, class_root_is_base_library: bool}], count: int }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
log_nameYesThe message log listing name (e.g. "PIE", "MapCheck", or a custom name). Required.
severityNoOptional severity filter: "Error"|"PerformanceWarning"|"Warning"|"Info" (case-insensitive). Omit for all.
base_librariesNoPackage roots to classify each entry's class against (optional, default: the project's Read Only Content Roots). An explicit [] disables the classification. Reported as data in class_root/class_root_is_base_library; the tool never judges which root is "upstream".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: entries are resolved back to the actor/component the engine attached, and it spells out the full return payload including classification fields. Pagination and error behavior remain unspecified.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the writer pairing and then the return contract. The return block is long but justified because there is no output schema to carry it; the field-by-field enumeration earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by fully specifying the return shape, and annotations already cover the safety profile. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though guidance on output volume or filtering behavior is not addressed.

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%, so the schema already documents log_name, severity, and base_libraries with enum-like values and defaults. The description only echoes severity_filter and base_libraries inside the return shape, adding no real parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 back') and resource (messages in a named engine Message Log listing), and pins the exact underlying API. It explicitly differentiates itself from add_message_log_entry and clear_message_log as the read counterpart, so an agent can place it without opening a 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 description establishes the read/write pairing with add_message_log_entry and clear_message_log, which gives clear context for when this tool applies. It does not, however, contrast with the more general get_output_log_lines sibling, so the boundary between the two log-reading tools is left to inference.

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