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

unreal-mcp-additional-tools

by nodormu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sc_status

Query source control status for given file paths to see if they are modified, added, or conflicted. Works with /Game/... content paths or absolute paths.

Instructions

Query source control status of file(s).

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": {
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "sc_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsYesFile paths to query (content paths like /Game/... or absolute paths)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb "Query" strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful transparency. However, it does not disclose return format, potential network dependencies, or behavior when files are not under source control, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the surrounding sibling context, the description is adequately complete. It could benefit from mentioning what the response contains (e.g., a status per path), but this is minor and does not significantly impede understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (paths), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the clear schema description.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ("Query"), a clear resource ("source control status"), and a scope ("file(s)"). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sc_checkout and sc_checkin, which modify source control state.

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 description implies usage when one needs to inspect source control status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as sc_diff or sc_checkout. There is no mention of preconditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling tool names.

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