Retrieve an Unreal Engine trigger actor's class and bounding box by name, including trigger shape flags and bounds origin/extent.
Retrieves information about a trigger actor, including its type and bounding box.
Returns: { actor_name, actor_class, is_trigger_box, is_trigger_sphere, bounds_origin, bounds_extent }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor_name | Yes | Name of the trigger actor to query |
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 safety is covered. The description usefully adds the exact return field set (actor_name, actor_class, is_trigger_box, is_trigger_sphere, bounds_origin, bounds_extent), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing behavior when the actor is not a trigger or on failure.
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 short, front-loaded lines with no filler. The purpose comes first and the return shape is broken out separately, which is efficient 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.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only getter with full annotation safety coverage and 100% schema coverage, the definition is close to sufficient; enumerating the return fields compensates for the missing output schema. Missing only edge-case/error behavior when the named actor is not a trigger.
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 actor_name parameter is documented as 'Name of the trigger actor to query.' The description adds no format or naming-convention detail beyond the schema, so the 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 specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (information about a trigger actor) plus the fields covered (type, bounding box). It distinguishes the resource from write siblings like create_trigger/set_trigger_box_extent, but does not explicitly contrast with read siblings such as get_trigger_events or get_trigger_overlap_count.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many trigger-related siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for querying a trigger actor's identity and bounds rather than its events or overlaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.