Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_sequence_master_tracks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve both master and object-binding tracks from a Level Sequence, including class, name, section count, and binding GUID, so you can inspect or validate the sequence structure.

Instructions

List the master tracks and binding tracks of a Level Sequence. A master track belongs to no object binding (applies to the sequence globally, e.g. a FadeTrack, AudioTrack, EventTrack, and the camera cut track, which is listed too); a binding track belongs to an object binding, whose guid it carries. This command returns both lists with class, name, section_count, binding_guid fields (binding_guid empty on a master track); total_track_count is their sum.

Returns: { sequence_path: string, total_track_count: int, master_track_count: int, binding_track_count: int, master_tracks: [{class, name, section_count, binding_guid}], binding_tracks: [{class, name, section_count, binding_guid}] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sequence_nameNoAlias for sequence_path.
sequence_pathNoAsset path of the Level Sequence.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "sequence_path"
-]
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the semantic distinction between master and binding tracks, the note that binding_guid is empty on master tracks, and the fact that total_track_count is the sum of the two lists. It stops short of describing pagination or failure behavior, but for a read-only listing tool this is a meaningful addition 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and followed by clarification and return shape in a logical order. The prose and the Returns block overlap somewhat (both enumerate class, name, section_count, binding_guid), which is mild redundancy, but the structure is clean and each part is useful given the absence of an output schema.

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 fully carries the return contract, specifying every returned field and its type. Parameters are covered by the schema and the safety profile by annotations, so the only gap is the lack of guidance on when to prefer this tool over the other sequence-inspection siblings.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents sequence_name as an alias for sequence_path. The description adds no parameter detail beyond restating the target resource, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the master tracks and binding tracks of a Level Sequence') and then defines what a master track vs. a binding track actually is, including concrete examples (FadeTrack, AudioTrack, EventTrack, camera cut track). This lets an agent distinguish the tool's output scope from siblings like get_binding_tracks or get_sequence_tracks 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting a sequence's track structure, but there is no statement of when to use it versus get_sequence_tracks, get_binding_tracks, or get_sequence_track_count, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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