Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
unreal-mcp-additional-tools

unreal-mcp-additional-tools

by nodormu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

export_sequence_fbx

Export a level sequence from Unreal Engine to an FBX file by specifying its asset path and output file path.

Instructions

Export a level sequence to FBX.

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": {
      "sequence_path": "<sequence_path>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "export_sequence_fbx"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_pathYesOutput FBX file path
sequence_pathYesLevelSequence asset path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for disclosing behavior. It only says 'export a level sequence to FBX' without mentioning side effects like overwriting the output file, whether it modifies the source sequence, error conditions, or any permissions required. This lack of disclosure is a notable gap.

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?

A single sentence with no extra words. It states the action directly and efficiently. The brevity is appropriate for what is otherwise a straightforward export operation.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), a minimal description may suffice. However, the absence of annotations and any extension around usage or behavior leaves it just above minimal viability, but it is not exceptional.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema describes both parameters completely (100% coverage) with names and descriptions ('LevelSequence asset path' and 'Output FBX file path'). The description doesn't add any extra semantics, and since the schema already carries the load, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Export'), the resource ('level sequence'), and the output format ('FBX'). This specificity distinguishes it from generic tools like 'export_asset' or 'render_sequence', even though the description doesn't explicitly compare with them.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, scenarios, or comparisons with siblings such as 'export_asset' or 'render_sequence'. This leaves the agent without context for selecting between related defaults.

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