Skip to main content
Glama

set_water_body_properties

DestructiveIdempotent

Update selected Unreal water body properties by label, such as waves, water height, velocity, and collision, applying only supplied fields and reading back each change.

Instructions

Partial-update a water body's properties (only the keys present are applied); each applied field is read back with already_set when it already matched.

Returns: { water_body_label: string, body_type: string, applied: [string], fields: { : { value, already_set } } }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_keyYesSpline input key for water_velocity/audio_intensity (required only when either is set)
shape_dilationNoShape dilation in uu
water_velocityNoRiver/spline water velocity to set at input_key (requires input_key)
audio_intensityNoSpline audio intensity to set at input_key (requires input_key)
water_body_labelYesLabel of the AWaterBody actor (Lake/Ocean/River)
affects_landscapeNoWhether the landscape is deformed by this water body
water_height_offsetNoOcean-only additional water height (errors on non-ocean bodies)
max_wave_height_offsetNoOffset added to the automatically calculated max wave height bounds
target_wave_mask_depthNoWater depth at which waves start being attenuated
collision_height_offsetNoDistance above the water surface where collision checks still occur
post_process_blend_weightNoUnderwater post-process blend weight (0..1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, destructive, idempotent. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: partial-application of only present keys and the already_set readback that explains idempotent behavior. It does not restate the destructive or ocean-only-error implications, which remain in the schema/annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences; the core partial-update behavior is front-loaded and the return shape follows. Every sentence carries information, and the return-shape detail compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 no output schema, the description usefully documents the return object. Combined with 100% schema coverage on a mutation tool, the agent has enough to call it correctly; the only missing piece is usage/alternative guidance against sibling water-body setters.

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 11 parameters are documented in the schema itself (including input_key requirements and ocean-only constraints). The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('Partial-update a water body's properties') and clarifies the partial semantics ('only the keys present are applied'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling water-body setters (set_water_body_material, set_water_body_gerstner_waves), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 explains what a partial update means but gives no when-to-use guidance or alternative routing against the dense cluster of water-body tools (get_water_body_info, set_river_spline_points, set_water_body_material). No prerequisites, no exclusions named.

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