Reports the Unreal editor bridge endpoint, editor responsiveness, resolved class table, and pipeline step limit, helping clients detect unreachable or partial states.
Bridge facts: endpoint, whether the editor answers, the class table this server resolves, and how many steps a pipeline may take.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it says the result includes whether the editor answers, which signals a live health probe, and lists resolved class table and pipeline step limit. It does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect behavior or auth/rate limits, leaving important behavioral context implicit.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list and no filler. Every phrase describes a returned fact.
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 no output schema, the description does explain the main return values (endpoint, editor availability, class table, pipeline step limit). For a zero-parameter status tool this is reasonably complete, though it could say what format these facts take or how to interpret failures.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters.
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 the concrete facts returned—endpoint, editor responsiveness, class table, and pipeline step limit—so an agent knows this is a bridge/editor status probe. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from siblings such as ue_pipeline, so it is clear but not maximally sharp.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any reference to alternatives. The content implies a health/status check, but the agent must infer that from the listed facts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.