Skip to main content
Glama

spawn_physics_constraint

Spawns a physics constraint actor in the Unreal editor, optionally wires two actors by name or label, and recomputes the joint frames.

Instructions

Spawns an APhysicsConstraintActor in the editor world at location (zero rotation) in an undo transaction and optionally sets the two actors it constrains, found by object name or label (first match), then recomputes the joint frames. A name that matches no actor is skipped, not an error: check actor1_wired and actor2_wired. Each call adds a new actor; the level is not saved. Tune it with set_constraint_limits and set_physics_constraint_drives, read it with get_physics_constraint_info; for joints inside a Physics Asset use add_physics_asset_constraint.

Returns: { actor_name: string, actor_internal_name: string, actor_class: string, constraint_component: string, actor1_wired: bool, actor2_wired: bool, constraint_actor1?: string, constraint_actor2?: string, spawned: bool }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
locationNoWorld [x, y, z] for the constraint actor (defaults to origin)
actor1_nameNoOptional name/label of the first actor to constrain
actor2_nameNoOptional name/label of the second actor to constrain

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that it runs in an undo transaction, adds a new actor each call, does not save the level, and that an unmatched actor name is silently skipped rather than an error (directing the agent to check actor1_wired/actor2_wired). These are exactly the non-obvious side effects and failure semantics an agent needs.

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-loaded with the primary action and dense with useful detail, but the middle sentence is a long semicolon-chained run-on that mixes side effects, error handling, and alternatives. Efficient overall, slightly overloaded.

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 embeds the return shape and covers creation behavior, side effects (undo, no save), skip semantics, and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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: actors are found by object name or label with first-match semantics, location defaults to origin, and unmatched names are skipped. That is more than the schema conveys, though it doesn't detail the location array format.

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 (Spawns) and resource (APhysicsConstraintActor), plus scope (editor world, location, zero rotation). It explicitly routes away from the sibling add_physics_asset_constraint for joints inside a Physics Asset, so the agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names the exact siblings for adjacent tasks: tune with set_constraint_limits and set_physics_constraint_drives, read with get_physics_constraint_info, and use add_physics_asset_constraint for Physics Asset joints. This gives explicit when-to-use and alternative selection.

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