Skip to main content
Glama

set_ik_solver_bones

DestructiveIdempotent

Set a solver's start and end bones in a UIKRigDefinition asset by index, recording undo and saving; returns set flags, changed and saved status.

Instructions

Set the start bone and/or end bone of one solver in an IK Rig asset (0-based stack index) through the IK Rig controller, which records each change as an undo transaction, then save the asset. Pass at least one bone, else an error. An out-of-range index, a bone missing from the rig skeleton, or a start or end bone on a solver type without one is not an error: start_bone_set or end_bone_set comes back false, next to the bones read back, and nothing is stored for it. A bone the solver already has is left alone; when nothing changes, changed is false, saved is false, a note says why and nothing is saved. A failed save makes success false, with saved=false and save_error. get_ik_solver_bones reads them.

Returns: { asset_path: string, solver_index: int, start_bone: string, end_bone: string, start_bone_set: bool, end_bone_set: bool, changed: bool, saved: bool, save_error?: string, note?: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_boneNoOptional end bone name
start_boneNoOptional start bone name
ik_rig_pathYesPath to the UIKRigDefinition asset
solver_indexYes0-based solver index

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, non-readOnly), and the description goes well beyond them: undo-transaction recording, asset save behavior, the precise non-error failure semantics (start_bone_set/end_bone_set false, nothing stored), the no-op case (changed/saved false with a note), and the failed-save case (success false, save_error). That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure consistent with, not contradicting, the annotations.

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-loads the verb and resource before the behavioral details, and every sentence carries distinct information about error/no-op/save outcomes. The prose is dense and a few sentences run long, and the trailing Returns block overlaps the outcome details stated in prose.

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, the description fully documents the return shape (all fields plus optional save_error/note) and the conditional meaning of each flag. For a destructive, asset-saving mutation tool this leaves nothing an agent needs to call it correctly unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: solver_index is a stack index, start/end bones are independently optional yet at least one is required, and both must name real bones in the rig skeleton. These constraints are not expressible in the schema's brief property descriptions.

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 (Set) and precise resource (start/end bone of one solver in an IK Rig asset, 0-based stack index), and names the sibling that reads the same data (get_ik_solver_bones). An agent can distinguish it from the settings/enabled counterparts without opening any 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?

Gives clear operating context: at least one bone must be passed or it errors, and it routes the agent to get_ik_solver_bones for reading. It does not explicitly frame when to prefer set_ik_solver_settings or set_ik_bone_settings for adjacent edits, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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