Remove a named socket from a static mesh in Unreal Engine to manage attachment points. Idempotent and returns updated socket count.
Remove a socket from a static mesh by name (idempotent).
Returns: { static_mesh_path, socket_name, removed, socket_count }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| socket_name | Yes | Name of the socket to remove. | |
| 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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the parenthetical '(idempotent)' merely repeats what the annotation states. The description does add value by disclosing the return shape, which is useful since no output schema exists, but it omits other behavioral context like permission requirements or persistence effects.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the return shape. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or padding text.
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, non-destructive-write... rather, destructive-write tool with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the one missing structured element (the return shape, since there is no output schema). It could be more complete by noting prerequisites or the sibling add tool, but nothing essential is absent.
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 coverage is 100%, with both socket_name and static_mesh_path fully documented in the schema itself. The phrase 'by name' loosely gestures at the socket_name parameter but adds no format or path-syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 specific verb and resource ('Remove a socket from a static mesh') plus the scoping detail 'by name,' so an agent understands the operation. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as remove_skeletal_mesh_socket or remove_socket_from_skeleton_asset, which is precisely the kind of distinction a 5 would require.
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?
The description contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or the inverse add_static_mesh_socket tool. An agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.