Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
unreal-engine-mcp

unreal-engine-mcp

by harn3ss
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rc_set_property

Set a UObject property directly via Remote Control, with full undo support for transactions.

Instructions

Write a UObject property directly via Remote Control (transacted/undoable).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "object_path": "<object_path>",
      "property_name": "<property_name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "rc_set_property"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
object_pathYes
property_nameYes
valueYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses one key behavioral trait ('transacted/undoable'), which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, error states, whether it overwrites or merges, or what happens on failure. With no annotations, more behavioral detail is needed.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing parameters), but it is concise and immediate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description should at least hint at the return value. It also lacks parameter context. For a tool with 3 required parameters, the description is too sparse to be complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (object_path, property_name, value). It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool writes a UObject property via Remote Control and specifies it is transacted/undoable. It distinguishes from siblings like rc_get_property (read) and rc_call_function (call function).

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like set_actor_property, nor does it specify prerequisites or context.

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