Skip to main content
Glama

add_tile_view

Create a UTileView in a Widget Blueprint root and add it to the widget tree to build tile-based item lists in Unreal Engine UMG.

Instructions

Construct a UTileView 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 UTileView widget
entry_widget_classNoOptional entry widget class
widget_blueprint_nameYes/Game path of the Widget Blueprint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds the return shape, and the 'already_existed' field implicitly signals existence-checking behavior, which is useful. However it doesn't explain what happens on null/repeat calls or that the Blueprint must be compiled, so it adds only modest context.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the return shape. No filler. Since no output schema exists, the Returns line earns its place rather than repeating structured data.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, spelling out the returned fields is genuinely valuable and is done. But for a Blueprint-mutating tool the definition omits prerequisites (target BP open/compiled, duplicate-name behavior) and sibling routing, so it is adequate rather than 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% and the force parameter's description already carries the full PIE-refusal rationale. The description's phrase 'under the widget BP root' loosely ties to widget_blueprint_name but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 concrete verb+resource: 'Construct a UTileView ... and add it to the tree.' Naming UTileView distinguishes it from the add_list_view and add_tree_view siblings on the resource axis. It doesn't explicitly contrast against those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance at all. The description never says when to prefer add_tile_view over add_list_view, add_tree_view, or add_widget_extended, nor does it mention the PIE preconditions that the force parameter schema documents.

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