Skip to main content
Glama

add_list_view

Constructs a UListView in a Widget Blueprint, adding it to the root tree. Specify an entry widget class; blocked during Play-in-Editor unless forced.

Instructions

Construct a UListView under the widget BP root and add it to the tree.

Returns: { widget_blueprint_name, list_view_name, list_view_class, already_existed, entry_widget_class, widget_added }

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.
list_view_nameYesFName of the new UListView widget
entry_widget_classNoOptional entry widget class (asset or /Script path)
widget_blueprint_nameYes/Game path of the Widget Blueprint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuine value with no output schema present by enumerating the returned fields, including already_existed and widget_added, which tells the agent the tool reports whether the widget pre-existed rather than blindly duplicating. It omits the PIE-refusal behavior, but the schema's force parameter documents that thoroughly.

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?

Two compact lines, with the action front-loaded ahead of the return shape. The return-value list is slightly bulky but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

For a mutating widget-tree tool with full annotation coverage, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing piece (the return contract) and states the action and placement target. Only the absence of any when-to-use or prerequisite context keeps it short of complete.

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 detailed explanation of the force/PIE interaction, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds only an implicit mapping between list_view_name/entry_widget_class and the returned fields, which is the baseline-3 expectation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Construct a UListView under the widget BP root and add it to the tree'), which is far more precise than the name alone. It does not, however, contrast itself with the related siblings such as add_tree_view, add_tile_view, or the generic add_widget_to_blueprint, so an agent must infer the choice from the widget-type wording.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., must the widget Blueprint already exist?), and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this tool is the widget-type-specific alternative to add_widget_to_blueprint/add_tree_view.

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