Sends a custom message to Unreal Engine's Output Log using UE_LOG, with optional verbosity levels (Log, Warning, Error) for runtime status and debugging.
Print a message to the Unreal Output Log via UE_LOG(LogTemp, ...).
Returns: { logged: bool, message: string, verbosity: string }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The text to log. | |
| verbosity | No | UE_LOG verbosity: "Log" (default), "Warning", "Error". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing behavioral: no note on log persistence, verbosity effects on editor behavior, or whether repeated calls duplicate entries. Notably it does not reconcile the surprising destructiveHint=true with an apparently additive logging operation.
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 sentences: the operation first, then the return shape. There is no filler, though the Returns line is arguably redundant since logged/message/verbosity are self-evident from the inputs.
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 two-parameter, single-effect utility with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the verb, the destination (Unreal Output Log), the underlying API, and the return fields. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.
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%, so both parameters (message, verbosity) are already documented in the schema, including the Log/Warning/Error values. The description only echoes the verbs 'message' and 'verbosity' in its return line and adds no 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?
The description states a specific verb and target: print a message to the Unreal Output Log via UE_LOG(LogTemp, ...). It does not differentiate from near-siblings such as add_message_log_entry, get_output_log_lines, or get_message_log_entries, so an agent must infer which logging surface this hits.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the message-log or output-log-reading siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent is told what it does but not when it is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.