Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_transition

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a transition from a UStateTree state using its 0-based index; out-of-range indexes are handled without error.

Instructions

Remove a transition (by index) from a state. Idempotent at the index-out-of-range boundary.

Returns: { tree_path, state_name, transition_index, removed, remaining, saved }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tree_pathYesAsset path to the UStateTree.
state_nameYesName of the state.
transition_indexYes0-based index into the state's Transitions array.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "tree_path",
-  "transition_index"
-]New value: +[
+  "tree_path",
+  "state_name",
+  "transition_index"
+]
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying idempotence at the index-out-of-range boundary and naming the return fields (removed, remaining, saved), which is valuable since no output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with zero wasted wording. It front-loads the verb and resource, then cleanly provides the return shape on a separate line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and existing annotations, the description is nearly complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing return fields, though it does not route the agent among related state-tree transition tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the three parameters individually documented. The description only restates that removal is by index from a state, adding little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description gives a precise verb, resource, and scope: removing a transition by index from a state. This distinguishes it from broader state-tree removal siblings such as remove_transition_condition and remove_state, and the index qualifier separates it from property-based transition edits.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as update_transition or remove_transition_condition. The only contextual behavior mentioned is the idempotence boundary, not usage selection.

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