Inspect an Unreal MCP toolset by name to retrieve its description and input schemas for each tool. Use to understand available functions and parameters.
Describe one Unreal MCP toolset and return tool input schemas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_filter | No | ||
| toolset_name | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns input schemas, which is a mild behavioral trait, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid toolset names, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that likely just queries metadata.
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, concise sentence with no redundant words. The core action and return value are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. It earns its place with zero fluff.
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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description does not mention how to obtain valid toolset names, what happens if the toolset is not found, or the role of the optional 'tool_filter'. These gaps could lead to incorrect calls, though the core functionality is clear.
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 parameter meaning. The description implies that 'toolset_name' is the toolset to describe, but it does not explain the 'tool_filter' parameter at all, nor its purpose or default behavior. Only one of the two parameters is partially addressed, leaving the other undocumented.
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 clearly states the action ('Describe') and the resource ('one Unreal MCP toolset'), and specifies what is returned ('tool input schemas'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_toolsets' (which lists toolsets) and 'describe_bridge_toolset' (which describes a different kind of toolset). This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.
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 description implies usage: to get details of a specific toolset, call this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The context of siblings suggests it's for detailed inspection, but there is no explicit routing guidance. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.