Lists all Remote Control Presets available in the current Unreal Engine project.
List all Remote Control Presets in the project.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_presets"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description clearly states it lists all presets in the project, implying a read-only aggregation operationaine. It doesn't mention any side effects, performance implications, or output details, but for a list operation, that's acceptable. It doesn't contradict anything, and the name 'list' suggests non-destructive behavior.
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 a single concise sentence that clearly states the action and scope. Zero wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters, so the description is sufficient. It could mention that it returns a list, but that's implied. No annotations to add more context, but the simplicity means completeness is high.
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 no parameters, and the schema covers 100% of parameters (none). So no extra explanation is needed. The description accurately reflects the schema.
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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (Remote Control Presets), and the scope (all in the project). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_preset_info which focuses on a single preset, and set/get preset properties which modify or query individual properties.
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?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: to list all presets in the project. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it's for broad enumeration rather than targeting specific presets. Sibling tools like get_preset_info suggest differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.