Skip to main content
Glama

add_anim_state

Add a state node to a state machine inside an Animation Blueprint to define animation states and confirm whether it was created or already existed.

Instructions

Add a state node to a state machine inside an Animation Blueprint.

Returns: { anim_blueprint_path: string, machine_name: string, state_name: string, node_class: string, state_created: bool, already_existed: bool, saved: bool, state_count: int, save_error?: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoOptional. This command is REFUSED while a Play-in-Editor session is running: it either compiles a Blueprint (the reinstancer can retain a world, and CheckForWorldGCLeaks is Fatal -- it KILLS the editor) or writes to disk (Editor.AllowSavingAssetsDuringPIE=0 makes the engine refuse the write, so it would report success without writing a byte). Stop PIE and retry instead; force=true runs it anyway, at your own risk.
state_nameYesName for the new state
machine_nameYesName of the target state machine
blueprint_nameNoAlias of `anim_blueprint_path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `anim_blueprint_path`.
anim_blueprint_pathNoPath to the UAnimBlueprint asset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value by publishing the return contract: `already_existed` reveals collision behavior and `saved`/`save_error` reveal that the write is persisted and can partially fail. That is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though permissions and the editor-crashing PIE hazard are left to the schema.

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?

Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return fields enumerated compactly. Since no output schema exists, the Returns block is not redundant padding and every field listed earns its place.

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?

With annotations present, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract, which is the largest gap for a mutation tool like this. It stops short of explaining where the new state lands in the machine's graph or how duplicate names are handled, but nothing an agent needs to form a correct call is absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including a very rich explanation of `force` and the alias relationship between `blueprint_name` and `anim_blueprint_path`, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about any of the five parameters, making 3 the correct baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a state node to a state machine inside an Animation Blueprint'), which is directly distinguishable in scope from add_anim_state_machine, add_anim_transition, and remove_anim_state. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the resource noun rather than stated.

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 when-to-use, ordering, or prerequisite guidance appears in the description: it never says the state machine must already exist, what happens if state_name collides with an existing state, or that the Blueprint should be compiled afterward. The important PIE restriction lives only in the `force` parameter schema text, not in the description.

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