Skip to main content
Glama

get_world_settings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a world's GameMode and assigned pawn, PlayerController, HUD, and spectator classes plus gravity, time dilation, and paused state to verify which classes a map will spawn.

Instructions

Read a world's framework wiring: default GameMode plus the pawn / PlayerController / HUD / spectator classes it hands out, and gravity, time dilation and paused state. Use this to check WHICH GameMode+PC a map will spawn; use get_world_settings_detail for the physics/KillZ/world-bounds side. World-aware: with the default world='editor' there is no live GameMode, so the classes come from the DefaultGameMode CDO -- i.e. what the map INTENDS; ask for world='server' and GetAuthGameMode() returns the GameMode a running PIE ACTUALLY instantiated, which is the read that settles a set_player_controller_class that looks applied and is not. WARNING: world_type is stamped by the canonical world evidence, so it can read 'PIE', not only Game/Editor/Other.

Returns: { world: string, world_name: string, world_type: string, default_game_mode: string, default_pawn_class: string, player_controller_class: string, hud_class: string, spectator_class: string, world_gravity_enabled: bool (the effective gravity Z is non-zero), world_gravity_overridden: bool (Override World Gravity), world_gravity_z: number, time_dilation: number, paused: number, world_package: string|null, net_mode: string|null, pie_instance: number }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
worldNoOptional world selector: absent/'editor' (default) | 'pie' (ambiguous: PlayWorld, else the first PIE context) | 'server' (the PIE world with authority -- the only one with a live AuthGameMode) | 'client' | 'pie:N' | 'game' (alias of 'pie'). An unrecognised value FAILS naming the worlds that exist; it never falls back to another world in silence.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 structurally. The description does add genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot: the CDO-vs-live-AuthGameMode distinction, and the WARNING that world_type is stamped by canonical world evidence and can read 'PIE'. However, with annotations carrying the read-only profile and the extra notes being partly world-selector exposition, this is solid but not maximally informative about return-side behavior.

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 and the routing decision are front-loaded, and the Returns block is justified because no output schema exists. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries information—the only mild redundancy is restating the world-selector semantics that the schema also documents.

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 inspection tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the field list, the world-selector semantics, the sibling hand-off, and the caveat about world_type—everything an agent needs to select and interpret the call. Annotations cover the safety dimension, so nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single world parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema itself (absent/'editor', 'pie', 'server', 'client', 'pie:N', 'game', and the fail-loud behavior on unknown values). The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema does not: WHY 'server' differs (GetAuthGameMode returns the actually-instantiated GameMode) versus editor's CDO intent. That elevates it above the 3 baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (a world's framework wiring) and enumerates exactly what is included: default GameMode, pawn/PlayerController/HUD/spectator classes, gravity, time dilation, paused state. It also names the sibling it is not (get_world_settings_detail) and assigns that sibling the physics/KillZ/world-bounds side, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use this to check WHICH GameMode+PC a map will spawn' with a named alternative for the other half of the domain. It further gives the selection condition between world='editor' and world='server' and states the diagnostic scenario where 'server' is the decisive read (settling a set_player_controller_class that looks applied but is not).

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