Describe a bridge command category to retrieve its command descriptors, registry path, and filtered commands. Use this to inspect available Unreal Engine bridge commands for editor workflows.
Describe one bridge command category and its command descriptors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toolset_name | Yes | ||
| registry_path | No | ||
| command_filter | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'describe' strongly implies a read-only metadata lookup, and the sentence clarifies that the result contains command descriptors. Still, it does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior or describe how invalid categories or optional inputs affect the call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of schema fields. It is appropriately short for a simple introspection tool, although the brevity causes it to omit useful parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one required parameter and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It is minimally viable for selection and invocation, but it remains incomplete around the two optional parameters and does not help an agent choose among the closely related bridge introspection tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It loosely maps toolset_name to a 'bridge command category' but does not explain registry_path or command_filter, leaving an agent to guess their roles despite the defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('describe') and a specific resource ('one bridge command category') and indicates the output ('its command descriptors'). It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling introspection tools such as list_bridge_toolsets, describe_toolset, or bridge_descriptor_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one bridge command category' implies this tool is for retrieving details about a single category, which is some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the parallel bridge-related sibling tools, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.