Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

add_enum_entry

Idempotent

Append a display-named enumerator to a Blueprint Enum asset, idempotently adding it before the hidden _MAX sentinel and reporting if it already exists.

Instructions

Append one enumerator to a Blueprint Enum (UUserDefinedEnum) and give it a display name. Idempotent (an entry whose display/internal name already exists reports already_existed with added=false, leaving the enum unchanged -- the engine itself does NOT dedup). The new entry lands at the end, before the hidden _MAX sentinel.

Returns: { enum_path: string, entry_name: string, added: bool, already_existed: bool, entry_count: int, entries: [string] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enum_pathYesFull asset path of the UUserDefinedEnum (e.g. /Game/Blueprints/MyEnum).
entry_nameYesDisplay name for the new enumerator.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare write/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial value beyond them: the engine does NOT dedup itself, this tool does, the dedup key is display/internal name, and the entry is placed before the hidden _MAX sentinel. That is genuine behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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-loaded with verb+resource, then the idempotency caveat, then the return shape. Efficient, though the parenthetical is densely packed and could read more cleanly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the explicit return field list is valuable, and annotations plus the description cover the mutation/idempotency profile. Minor gap: no mention of failure behavior for an invalid or non-existent enum_path.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: entry_name is the display name and is also the key used for dedup matching, and enum_path must point at a UUserDefinedEnum. This goes slightly beyond the schema text.

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 (Append) and resource (one enumerator to a Blueprint Enum, UUserDefinedEnum), and the 'one' scope clearly differentiates it from bulk or remove/rename/reorder siblings. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 idempotency condition (already_existed, added=false) implies usage context, but the description never states when to prefer this over create_enum, remove_enum_entry, or rename_enum_entry, nor any prerequisite that the target enum must already exist.

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