Discover available Unreal MCP toolsets by filtering by text, category, or status to identify the right editor automation capabilities for your workflow.
List Unreal MCP toolsets with optional text/category/status filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| filter_text | No | ||
| response_format | No | text |
| 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation and the optional filters are disclosed, but no detail is given about how filters interact, what response_format controls, or any listing limits. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not especially transparent.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the filter options are stated compactly at the end, making it easy for the agent to parse quickly.
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?
This is a fairly simple list tool with an output schema, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. However, the description lacks usage guidance, omits response_format semantics, and does not distinguish this tool from sibling toolset/tool listing tools. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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. It maps three of the four parameters (filter_text, category, status) to 'filters' and clarifies they are optional, which adds some meaning beyond bare parameter names. However, response_format is not mentioned at all, and filter value semantics/combination behavior are unspecified.
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 states a specific action ('List') and a resource ('Unreal MCP toolsets'), and adds the key point that text/category/status filters are optional. This is clear and tied to the tool name, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like list_bridge_toolsets or list_available_tools.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_bridge_toolsets, list_available_tools, or describe_toolset. The description states what the tool does but not when it should be preferred, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.