Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_consideration_property

DestructiveIdempotent

Set a single StateTree consideration property by name via reflection; idempotent updates return set status and value_changed.

Instructions

Set a single field of a consideration instance by reflection (FJsonObjectConverter::JsonValueToFProperty). Idempotent — re-applying the same value is a no-op (returns set:true, value_changed:false).

Returns: { tree_path, state_name, consideration_index, property, set, value_changed, saved }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYesJSON value to apply (any FJsonObjectConverter-supported type).
propertyYesFProperty name on the consideration struct.
tree_pathYesAsset path to the UStateTree.
state_nameYesName of the state.
consideration_indexYes0-based index into State->Considerations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / value / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / value / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "tree_path",
-  "consideration_index",
-  "property"
-]New value: +[
+  "tree_path",
+  "state_name",
+  "consideration_index",
+  "property",
+  "value"
+]
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 idempotency restatement is partly redundant. However the description adds genuine value by explaining the consequence (set:true, value_changed:false) and by supplying the return payload, which matters because no output schema exists. It does not elaborate on what 'destructive' means for the underlying asset.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, with the return contract appended. Every element is relevant, though the reflection call signature is implementation detail that may not help the agent act.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, idempotency semantics and the return shape (no output schema exists, so this is needed). What is missing is routing among the many sibling setters and any note on persistence/authorization.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the accepted value types. The description adds only that the value must be an FJsonObjectConverter-supported type, which is a marginal addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (set) plus resource (a single field of a consideration instance) and even names the underlying mechanism. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling setters like set_condition_property and set_task_property. It loses a point only because the state-tree context is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (set_condition_property, set_task_property, set_evaluator_property) that an agent must choose between in this crowded state-tree family. The reader is left to infer usage entirely.

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