Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_state_tree_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a StateTree asset without modifying it to inspect states, transitions, parameters, root state, and task bindings for debugging or analysis.

Instructions

Read a StateTree asset without changing it: every state with its type, selection behavior and task, enter-condition, child and transition counts, every transition with trigger, priority, event tag and delay, the root parameters, root_state and evaluator, global task and binding counts.

Returns: { name, transitions, children, from_state, to_state, trigger, event_tag, type, tree_path, state_count, states, transition_count, parameter_count, parameters, root_state }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tree_pathYesAsset path of the StateTree, e.g. "/Game/AI/ST_Guard".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / tree_path / description
      Previous value: -"Asset path to the UStateTree"New value: +"Asset path of the StateTree, e.g. \"/Game/AI/ST_Guard\"."
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing exactly what data is read (states, transitions, root parameters, evaluator, global tasks, bindings) and its return shape, which compensates for the missing output schema. 'Without changing it' is redundant with readOnlyHint but not misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The core action is front-loaded, but the first sentence is a dense, run-on enumeration, and the Returns list repeats several fields already mentioned (states, transitions, parameters, type). It is information-rich but not maximally concise or structurally clean.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so through both prose and a field list covering states, transitions, root parameters, evaluator, global tasks, and bindings. It does not cover edge cases such as missing assets, but for a read-only inspection tool this is largely complete.

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 tree_path is fully described in the input schema, so the description adds no additional syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter.

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 ('Read') and resource ('StateTree asset'), then enumerates the exact content fetched, making the tool's deep-inspection role clear. It does not name sibling tools or explicitly contrast with list_state_trees, so differentiation from siblings is only implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description explains what is returned but not when this tool should be chosen over list_state_trees, list_states, or other StateTree inspection tools.

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