Skip to main content
Glama

set_gameplay_effect_modifier_attribute_based_up_to_channel

DestructiveIdempotent

Switch a Gameplay Effect modifier's magnitude to AttributeBased with the channel-terminated calculation policy, evaluating up to a specified final channel.

Instructions

Switch a GE modifier's magnitude to AttributeBased with the channel-terminated calculation policy (AttributeMagnitudeEvaluatedUpToChannel + FinalChannel)

Returns: { ge_blueprint_path: string, modifier_index: int, modifier_count: int, magnitude_type: string, backing_attribute: string, capture_attribute_readback: string, backing_attribute_matches: bool, attribute_source: string, coefficient: number, pre_multiply_add: number, post_multiply_add: number, calculation_type: string, final_channel: int, final_channel_readback: int, channel_matches: bool, snapshot: bool, set: bool }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
snapshotNoIf true capture the attribute at spec creation, else track changes. Default true
coefficientNoMultiplier applied to the captured value. Default 1.0
final_channelNoMod evaluation channel (0-9) to terminate the partial attribute evaluation at. Default 0
blueprint_nameNoAlias of `ge_blueprint_path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `ge_blueprint_path`.
modifier_indexYesIndex into the GE CDO Modifiers array (0 = first)
attribute_sourceNoCapture source: Source (caster) or Target (recipient). Default Source
pre_multiply_addNoAdditive value applied before the coefficient. Default 0.0
backing_attributeYesAttribute to capture, e.g. Health or MySet.Health (must exist on some AttributeSet)
ge_blueprint_pathNoFull asset path of the GE Blueprint
post_multiply_addNoAdditive value applied after the coefficient. Default 0.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 description adds the behavioral effect (the modifier's magnitude evaluation is changed to a channel-terminated attribute read) but says nothing about what the switch discards from the prior magnitude setup, or any editor/precondition requirements.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence is tight and front-loaded with the distinguishing policy. The follow-on Returns block is an 18-field run-on enumeration; it carries information (no output schema exists) but is dense and unstyled rather than structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

It usefully compensates for the missing output schema by listing returned readback fields, and the schema covers parameters. However, for a destructive 10-parameter mutation among several near-identical siblings, it omits preconditions and sibling routing, which materially limits an agent's ability to choose and invoke it safely.

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 all ten parameters, including final_channel, coefficient, and the pre/post multiply adds, are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of FinalChannel adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema's '0-9' note provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Switch a GE modifier's magnitude to AttributeBased') and pins down the exact calculation policy pair (AttributeMagnitudeEvaluatedUpToChannel + FinalChannel), which is what distinguishes it from the plain attribute-based sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the split from the name alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The policy parenthetical ('channel-terminated ... + FinalChannel') implicitly defines the condition under which this variant is the right call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many set_gameplay_effect_modifier_* siblings. Usage is inferable from the name, not stated.

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