Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_state_enter_condition

Destructive

Remove a StateTree state's enter condition by index and save the asset; returns whether it was removed, remaining conditions, and save status. Out-of-range indexes remove nothing but still succeed.

Instructions

Remove one enter condition, by index, from a state of a StateTree asset and save the asset. An out-of-range index removes nothing and still succeeds, with removed false and a note. Returns removed, remaining and saved; for transition conditions use remove_transition_condition.

Returns: { tree_path, state_name, condition_index, removed, remaining, saved, note }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tree_pathYesAsset path of the StateTree, e.g. "/Game/AI/ST_Guard".
state_nameYesName of the state that owns the condition; the command fails without it.
condition_indexYes0-based index into the state EnterConditions, as listed by list_conditions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / condition_index / description
      Previous value: -"0-based index into EnterConditions."New value: +"0-based index into the state EnterConditions, as listed by list_conditions."
    • changedInput schema / properties / state_name / description
      Previous value: -"Name of the state."New value: +"Name of the state that owns the condition; the command fails without it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / tree_path / description
      Previous value: -"Asset path."New value: +"Asset path of the StateTree, e.g. \"/Game/AI/ST_Guard\"."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "tree_path",
-  "condition_index"
-]New value: +[
+  "tree_path",
+  "state_name",
+  "condition_index"
+]
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: an out-of-range index is a no-op that still succeeds with removed=false and a note, and the call saves the asset. That edge-case and side-effect disclosure is what earns credit here.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope in the first sentence. Slightly redundant: it states 'Returns removed, remaining and saved' and then repeats the full return object, so the second line does not fully earn its place.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so (tree_path, state_name, condition_index, removed, remaining, saved, note). The out-of-range no-op edge case and the sibling routing make it complete for a destructive mutation tool.

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%, so tree_path, state_name, and condition_index are already documented; the description reinforces the index semantics (0-based, out-of-range behavior) but doesn't add syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (remove), resource (enter condition), and scope (by index, from a state of a StateTree asset). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_transition_condition, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Names the sibling remove_transition_condition as the alternative for transition conditions, which is the key disambiguation for this family. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g. that the state must exist, that indices come from list_conditions) beyond schema hints, so it stops short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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