Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_sequence_track_count

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count tracks in a Level Sequence and return total, master, binding, section, and per-class breakdown for auditing animation complexity.

Instructions

Flat readback of the total/master/binding track counts and per-class breakdown. master_track_count counts the root tracks, the camera cut track included; binding_track_count counts the tracks of every object binding; total_track_count is their sum, and class_breakdown and total_section_count cover both.

Returns: { sequence_path: string, total_track_count: int, master_track_count: int, binding_track_count: int, total_section_count: int, distinct_class_count: int, class_breakdown: [{class, count}] }

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 changedv1.2.2
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "sequence_path",
-  "sequence_name"
-]
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description is not burdened by safety disclosure. It adds genuine domain semantics beyond the annotations by defining what each counter means (master counts root tracks including the camera cut track; binding counts every object binding's tracks; total is their sum) and by spelling out the return shape, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 clause, and the explanatory sentence plus return block are dense but useful. The first sentence is a long run-on that could be split, but no content is wasted.

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?

For a read-only counting tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece itself by enumerating the returned fields and their meanings. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result; the only unstated case is what happens when sequence_path is omitted.

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 both parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing about the parameters, and notably omits the one subtlety worth clarifying: that sequence_name is an alias for sequence_path and that neither is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Flat readback of the total/master/binding track counts and per-class breakdown') and names the exact fields being counted, so an agent can tell it apart from listing siblings such as get_sequence_tracks. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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: 'flat readback' of counts signals a summary/aggregation call as opposed to the detailed track-listing siblings (get_sequence_tracks, get_binding_tracks, get_sequence_master_tracks), but the description never says when to prefer this over them or when not to use it.

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