Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

break_level_instance

Destructive

Break an ALevelInstance actor to unnest its sub-level content into the current editor level as plain actors, then destroy the original level instance.

Instructions

Breaks an ALevelInstance actor, un-nesting its sub-level content into the current editor level as plain actors and destroying the original level-instance actor. Canonical headless path: resolve the ALevelInstance by label/name, then ULevelInstanceSubsystem::CanBreakLevelInstance (gate) -> BlockLoadLevelInstance (synchronous load) -> BreakLevelInstance. CanBreakLevelInstance is checked BEFORE BlockLoadLevelInstance on purpose: BlockLoadLevelInstance asserts check(!IsEditing()) and CanBreakLevelInstance rejects the editing/level-script states, so this ordering prevents the assert. BreakLevelInstance returns false when nothing was moved (an empty sub-level is the honest broke=false case, NOT an error). The original actor is destroyed by the engine, so this is a one-shot destructive op: re-running with the same name reports "level instance not found". Requires the editor (GEditor); BreakLevelInstance touches GEditor->GetSelectedActors()/Trans unguarded.

Returns: { actor_name: string, broke: bool, moved_actor_count: number, moved_actors: [string], levels: number, keep_folders: bool, was_loaded_forced: bool, note: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelsNoOptional, default 1. How many nested levels deep to break (passed to BreakLevelInstance Levels).
actor_nameYesRequired. Label or name of the ALevelInstance actor to break (matched via GetActorNameOrLabel).
keep_foldersNoOptional, default false. When true, preserve the source actor folders (ELevelInstanceBreakFlags::KeepFolders) instead of flattening them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the gate ordering rationale (CanBreakLevelInstance before BlockLoadLevelInstance to avoid the IsEditing assert), that empty sub-levels return broke=false rather than an error, and that it requires GEditor and touches selected actors unguarded. This is a genuinely informative behavioral disclosure.

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 action and the destructive one-shot constraint, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and somewhat long, with engine-internal assert detail that borders on over-specification, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description documents the return shape (actor_name, broke, moved_actor_count, etc.), the editor prerequisite, the destructive one-shot behavior, and the empty-sub-level edge case. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents actor_name, levels, and keep_folders. The description only touches label/name resolution and the Levels pass-through, adding little beyond the schema — the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting is appropriate.

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: it breaks an ALevelInstance actor, un-nests sub-level content as plain actors, and destroys the original actor. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like edit_level_instance, create_level_instance, and commit_level_instance.

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?

Explains the canonical headless path and the one-shot nature, noting that re-running with the same name reports 'level instance not found'. It gives strong context and an implicit when-not, but never names sibling alternatives (edit_level_instance/commit_level_instance) to route between them.

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