Skip to main content
Glama

set_skeletal_mesh_socket_transform

DestructiveIdempotent

Set a socket's local transform relative to its parent bone on a skeletal mesh. Provide location, rotation, or scale to update only those fields.

Instructions

Set the local transform (relative to parent bone) of a socket on a skeletal mesh. All three of location/rotation/scale are optional; only fields present are written.

Returns: { socket_name: string, skeletal_mesh_path: string, applied: {location, rotation, scale}, location_x: float, location_y: float, location_z: float, rotation_pitch: float, rotation_yaw: float, rotation_roll: float, scale_x: float, scale_y: float, scale_z: float }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scaleNoOptional [x, y, z] relative scale
locationNoOptional [x, y, z] relative location
rotationNoPREFERRED: the OBJECT {"roll":R,"pitch":P,"yaw":Y} (any subset, absent axes are 0). The ARRAY form below is [pitch, yaw, roll] -- its index 2 is ROLL, NOT yaw, which once put a PlayerStart on its side. Optional [pitch, yaw, roll] relative rotation (degrees)
socket_nameYesName of the socket to modify
skeletal_mesh_pathYesContent path to the skeletal mesh asset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 one genuine behavioral trait beyond that ('only fields present are written'), but says nothing about asset saving/persistence or whether the socket must already exist.

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: purpose first, then the return contract. The inline return listing is somewhat long but earns its place because there is no output schema. No filler or repetition.

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?

With annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the return object key-by-key, and it explains partial-write semantics. A mutation tool would ideally note persistence/save requirements, but otherwise it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the rotation parameter is documented exhaustively in the schema, so the 3 baseline applies. The description adds real value by stating the patch semantics of the three transform fields (only present fields are written), which is meaning beyond the per-field descriptions.

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 and resource ('Set the local transform ... of a socket on a skeletal mesh') and narrows the scope to 'relative to parent bone', which clearly separates it from siblings like rename_skeletal_mesh_socket or set_skeletal_mesh_socket_parent. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it falls just short of the top band.

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 sentence about location/rotation/scale being optional and only present fields being written implies the 'partial update' use case, but the description never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as set_bone_transform, add_skeletal_mesh_socket, or set_skeletal_mesh_socket_parent, and names no exclusions or prerequisites.

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