Skip to main content
Glama

apply_component_property_overrides

Destructive

Batch-apply multiple Blueprint component property overrides with one compile and one save, then verify each against the post-compile template to prevent ICH record loss.

Instructions

Re-apply N component-property overrides on ONE Blueprint with a SINGLE compile and a SINGLE save, then verify each value against the POST-COMPILE template (what a fresh instance actually reads). ICH-aware exactly like set_blueprint_component_property: an override on a component inherited from an ancestor Blueprint is routed through this class' InheritableComponentHandler. Built for post-reparent re-authoring, where one call per override means N compiles and N chances for an ICH record not to survive.

Returns: { success, error?, data: { blueprint_name, requested_count, applied_count, verified_count, mismatched_count, failed_count, compiled, saved, save_error?, equality_predicate, results: [{ index, component_name, property_name, source, applied, apply_error?, verification_status, matches_requested, post_value, post_source, note? }], verification } }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saveNoOptional bool (default true). Saves the Blueprint package ONCE, after the compile
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.
compileNoOptional bool (default true). false skips the compile: nothing is verifiable, every entry reports matches_requested=false with verification_status='not_verifiable'
overridesYesArray of { component_name, property_name, property_value } objects, applied in the given order
blueprint_nameNoBlueprint asset path or short name
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: routing through the InheritableComponentHandler for ancestor-inherited components, single compile + single save semantics, and verification against the post-compile template. It stops short of restating the PIE-refusal behavior in the body (that lives in the `force` schema field).

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 the core single-compile/single-save behavior, and every sentence carries information. The inline Returns block is long but justified given there is no output schema; overall it stays tight without filler.

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, yet the description supplies the full return shape (counts, per-override results, verification status). Combined with the safety annotations and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including save, force, compile, overrides, and the blueprint_name/path alias. The description adds only marginal value (N overrides applied in order) beyond what the schema already conveys, so 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 precise verb + resource + scope: re-apply N component-property overrides on ONE Blueprint with a SINGLE compile and save, then verify against the post-compile template. It distinguishes itself from the one-call-per-override sibling behavior, so an agent can tell what it does 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly frames the use case as 'post-reparent re-authoring' and explains why to prefer it over one call per override (N compiles, N chances for ICH records to fail). It does not name the specific alternative tool, but the contrast is clear enough to route correctly.

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