Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

add_comment_node

Destructive

Add a resizable comment box to a Blueprint graph for annotating or grouping nodes. The requested text is currently ignored, so check the returned comment field.

Instructions

Add a resizable comment box (UEdGraphNode_Comment) to a graph. KNOWN BUG: the 'text' parameter is LOST -- the comment is assigned before the node is finalized and the engine's PostPlacedNewNode then overwrites it, so every box created this way reads "Comment"; the returned "comment" field is the oracle and there is no MCP way to fix it (write the rationale in the system's docs instead, and delete the empty box). It also has NO pins, so a pin_defaults entry aimed at it breaks a whole build_blueprint_graph batch.

Returns: { node_id, class, title, pos_x, pos_y, comment } -- no pins array. comment=="Comment" means the requested text was not written.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoComment text; currently IGNORED (see the bug above), the box always ends up saying "Comment"
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.
widthNoComment box width in pixels; defaults to 400
heightNoComment box height in pixels; defaults to 200
graph_nameNoTarget graph name; defaults to the Blueprint's event graph when omitted
position_xNoNode X position on the graph canvas (ignored when node_position is set)
position_yNoNode Y position on the graph canvas (ignored when node_position is set)
node_positionNoNode canvas position as [x, y]; takes precedence over position_x/position_y
blueprint_nameNoBlueprint asset name or path
blueprint_pathNoAlias of `blueprint_name` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `blueprint_name`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses far more than the annotations do: a known bug that discards the text parameter (engine's PostPlacedNewNode overwrites it), that the node has no pins, that PIE invocation can either kill the editor via CheckForWorldGCLeaks or silently fail to write to disk (Editor.AllowSavingAssetsDuringPIE=0), and that force=true bypasses the refusal. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action, then the bug, then the return contract in a tight sequence, with the most consequential warning (PIE refusal / editor kill) surfaced early. Slightly bloated because the text-ignored and PIE-refusal facts are each restated in the schema descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by spelling out the return object (node_id, class, title, pos_x, pos_y, comment) and noting the absence of a pins array, plus the oracle meaning of comment=='Comment'. Combined with the bug and PIE disclosures, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly or decide not to.

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%, so every parameter is already documented (including that text is ignored and that blueprint_path is an alias). The description reinforces the text/force semantics and ties the 'comment' return value to the text parameter, but adds little syntactic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource and names the concrete engine class (UEdGraphNode_Comment), plus the key trait (resizable comment box). An agent can distinguish it immediately from add_graph_node, add_reroute_node, and the other node-creation siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operating context: do not run while a PIE session is active (stop PIE and retry, or force=true at your own risk), do not aim a pin_defaults entry at it, and prefer writing the rationale in docs instead of relying on the box text. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' comparison against sibling node tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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