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

unreal-mcp-additional-tools

by nodormu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

run_editor_utility_widget

Execute an Unreal Engine Editor Utility Widget by specifying its asset path.

Instructions

Run an Editor Utility Widget by asset path.

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": {
      "widget_path": "<widget_path>"
    },
    "name": "run_editor_utility_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widget_pathYesEditor Utility Widget 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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and execution context. It only says 'Run an Editor Utility Widget' without explaining what happens during execution, whether it mutates assets, or what errors might occur.

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?

The description is a single sentence of eight words, front-loaded and free of filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description provides the core action and input. However, it lacks usage differentiation and behavioral detail, making it minimally complete given the extensive sibling list.

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 already describes widget_path as 'Editor Utility Widget asset path' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this with 'by asset path' but adds no new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Run' plus the resource 'Editor Utility Widget' and the method 'by asset path'. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling run_editor_utility_blueprint, which targets a different asset type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus run_editor_utility_blueprint or other related utilities. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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