Skip to main content
Glama

add_rigvm_link

Destructive

Links an output pin to an input pin in a Control Rig Blueprint's RigVM graph, replacing existing links as needed. Compiles and saves on success; invalid pins or PIE without force return errors.

Instructions

Link an output pin to an input pin in the main RigVM graph of a Control Rig Blueprint (URigVMController::AddLink, no undo entry); a link already into that input pin, or out of an execute output pin, is replaced. Pins are NodeName.PinName paths as get_rigvm_graph lists them. A new link is then compiled and saved; a failed link (pins missing, incompatible or already linked) is an error with linked and saved false, and nothing is compiled or saved. Refused during PIE unless force. Add nodes with add_rigvm_node and set unlinked inputs with set_rigvm_pin_default; Blueprint graphs use connect_pins.

Returns: { asset_path: string, source_pin: string, target_pin: string, linked: bool, link_count: int, saved: bool, 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.
source_pinYesOutput pin path NodeA.PinName
target_pinYesInput pin path NodeB.PinName
control_rig_pathYesPath to the UControlRigBlueprint asset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds annotations (which only give destructive/readOnly/idempotent hints). Discloses replacement semantics (existing link into the input or out of an execute output is replaced), that a new link is compiled and saved, the failure contract (linked/saved false with nothing compiled), no undo entry, and PIE refusal. Rich behavioral context 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loads the core action, then tacks on replacement, failure, PIE, and alternative-tool guidance in compact clauses. The Returns block is informative and nothing reads as filler given the tool's complexity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description fills every gap: compile/save side effects, failure semantics, PIE gating, pin-path format, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds provenance for pin paths ("NodeName.PinName paths as get_rigvm_graph lists them"), pointing the agent at how to obtain valid values, and contextualizes the force flag's PIE role. Modest but real added meaning.

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 (link) and resources (output pin to input pin in the main RigVM graph of a Control Rig Blueprint), and names the underlying operation URigVMController::AddLink. It clearly distinguishes itself from add_rigvm_node, set_rigvm_pin_default, and connect_pins (Blueprint graphs).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: use add_rigvm_node for nodes, set_rigvm_pin_default for unlinked inputs, and connect_pins for Blueprint graphs. Also states the PIE refusal condition and the force escape hatch, covering both when-to-use and when-not.

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