Switch the active O3DE engine by name for the current process. Use this to select a registered engine without changing persistent settings.
Set the active O3DE engine by name (in-process, not persistent).
Args: name: Name of the registered engine to activate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose the key non-persistence behavior ('in-process, not persistent'), which is valuable. It does not mention what happens to the previously active engine, whether activation fails for unregistered names, or what the success response contains.
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 two compact lines: a clear purpose statement followed by a short Args block. Every sentence contributes, and the in-process caveat is front-loaded with the main purpose rather than buried.
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?
For a single-parameter, low-complexity setter, the description provides the necessary action, scope, and parameter meaning. The main omissions are edge behaviors such as error handling or replacing an existing active engine, but the output schema covers return details and the tool is otherwise simple enough to invoke correctly.
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?
The input schema only names the parameter as a string, while the description adds that it must be the name of a 'registered engine,' which is essential for correct invocation. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and fully explains the single required parameter.
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 opens with a direct verb-resource pair: 'Set the active O3DE engine by name,' which immediately identifies both the action and the target. The parenthetical '(in-process, not persistent)' further disambiguates it from persistent engine/project registration operations in the sibling set.
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?
It states the operation is in-process and not persistent, implying this is the tool for temporary session-level engine activation rather than permanent configuration. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as register_engine for persistent registration or get_engine_info for discovery, leaving some routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.