Skip to main content
Glama

get_bus_schema_live

Queries the running O3DE editor's BehaviorContext for a bus schema, returning event argument names and tooltips and falling back to Python or stub data when unavailable.

Instructions

Query the running editor's BehaviorContext for a bus schema.

Tries the AiCompanion gem's native get_bus_schema request first (gem 0.4.0 or later): it reads the live C++ reflection and includes each event's argument names and tooltips, which the Python bindings do not expose, and it works in the gem's secure mode. Older gems, the legacy RemoteConsole transport, or an unknown bus fall through to the editor-Python query, and that in turn falls back to the stub files.

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": {
      "module": "<module>",
      "bus": "<bus>"
    },
    "name": "get_bus_schema_live"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
busYes
moduleYes
project_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the gem version dependency (0.4.0+), secure-mode compatibility, transport-specific fallbacks (legacy RemoteConsole), and the gradual degradation to stub files. It omits error/latency behavior, but the fallback semantics are unusually well documented.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a well-organized fallback explanation. Slightly long, but each clause (version gate, transport alternatives, stub fallback) adds actionable information rather than filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the fallback/version behavior is covered. However, the total absence of parameter semantics and any guidance on choosing this over the sibling get_bus_schema leaves meaningful gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters (module, bus, project_path) is explained. The word 'bus' appears in the purpose sentence but its format/meaning is never clarified, and module and project_path are entirely unaddressed, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Query the running editor's BehaviorContext for a bus schema', and elaborates that it reads live C++ reflection including event argument names and tooltips. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_bus_schema, so an agent must infer the 'live' variant's role from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lays out an environment-conditional fallback chain (native gem request, then editor-Python, then stub files), which tells the agent what happens at runtime but not when to prefer this tool over the sibling get_bus_schema. Usage is implied rather than stated as a routing rule.

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