Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

bind_component_to_sequence

Destructive

Binds an actor component to a Level Sequence by adding a possessable binding, resolving the actor by label and locating the named component or root.

Instructions

Adds a possessable binding for an actor's component to a Level Sequence. Resolves the actor by label in the current editor world, finds the named component (by component name, class name, or "root"), adds a possessable for the component class, binds the component, and parents the component binding to the actor's binding when the actor is already possessed.

Returns: { sequence_path: string, actor_name: string, component_name: string, component_class: string, parent_binding_guid: string, binding_guid: string, display_name: string, possessable: bool, saved: bool, save_error?: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actor_nameYesLabel (or name) of the actor in the current editor world.
sequence_nameNoAlias for sequence_path.
sequence_pathNoFull /Game path OR bare asset name of the target Level Sequence.
component_nameYesComponent object name, component class name, or "root".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "sequence_path",
-  "sequence_name",
-  "actor_name",
-  "component_name"
-]New value: +[
+  "actor_name",
+  "component_name"
+]
  2. 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 already flag the operation as destructive and not idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it resolves the actor by label in the editor world, supports component name/class/root lookup, adds a possessable, binds the component, parents it when the actor is already possessed, and reports a saved/save_error outcome. It still does not state permission requirements or whether duplicate bindings are prevented.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with purpose and then process, and the returns object is valuable because no output schema exists. The process sentence is long and compound, but every clause carries operational meaning and nothing is wasted.

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 complex mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers resolution, binding, parenting, and return shape. It stops short of usage routing against bind_actor_to_sequence, leaving a small but clear gap.

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 all four parameters. The description restates the component resolution options and actor lookup but adds no new semantic meaning, such as how sequence_name behaves as an alias for sequence_path.

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?

Specific verb and resource: adds a possessable binding for an actor's component to a Level Sequence. It implicitly distinguishes itself from bind_actor_to_sequence by specifying 'component', but does not explicitly name siblings or clarify when to use each.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent must infer that this is for component bindings versus actor-level bindings from the tool name alone.

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