Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
o3de-mcp

o3de-mcp

by nickschuetz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

load_anim_graph

Load an .animgraph file into Open 3D Engine for authoring; returns graph id and file name, reusing existing graph if already loaded.

Instructions

Load an .animgraph file into the engine so it can be authored.

Returns {"id", "file_name"}. Loading a file that is already loaded this way returns the existing graph's id.

Args: file_name: Absolute path, an @alias@ path, or a path relative to the project.

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": {
      "file_name": "<file_name>"
    },
    "name": "load_anim_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.6.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the non-obvious idempotency behavior plus the return shape. It still omits error behavior (missing file) and whether the load mutates or replaces current authoring state, so it falls short of fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action, then return value, then idempotency behavior, then the argument. Every sentence adds information, and nothing is padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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 explained, and for a single-parameter tool the description covers purpose, path formats, and idempotency adequately. Only the routing versus sibling anim-graph tools is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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, and it does by enumerating the accepted path forms: absolute, @alias@, or project-relative. That is the main ambiguity an agent would face with a bare 'file_name' string.

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 (load an .animgraph file into the engine so it can be authored), which implicitly separates it from create_anim_graph and save_anim_graph. The distinction from those siblings is left implicit rather than named, so it lands just short of a 5.

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 idempotency note ('loading a file that is already loaded returns the existing id') gives a usable hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-create_anim_graph guidance or prerequisite statement. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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