Read a static mesh's lightmap resolution and lightmap UV coordinate index to verify lighting data in Unreal Engine.
Read lightmap resolution and lightmap UV coordinate index of a static mesh.
Returns: { static_mesh_path, lightmap_resolution, lightmap_coordinate_index }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| static_mesh_path | Yes | Content path to the UStaticMesh asset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the exact return shape, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about failure modes (missing asset, unloaded package) or what the values mean.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the operation stated first and the return fields second; nothing is padded. It could be marginally tighter, but it is effectively front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the tool is a single-param read whose annotations carry the safety profile. Only error behavior and the meaning/units of the returned values remain unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as the content path to the UStaticMesh asset. The description adds no further syntax, format, or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a precise verb and resource: reading lightmap resolution and lightmap UV coordinate index of a static mesh. An agent can distinguish it from mutating siblings like set_static_mesh_lightmap, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the broader get_static_mesh_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative (get_static_mesh_info for general mesh data, or set_static_mesh_lightmap for the write counterpart). The read-only intent is only inferable from the verb 'Read' and the annotations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.