Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

cancel_ability

Destructive

Cancel a granted ability on an editor-world actor's ability system component. Returns was_active, still_active, and cancelled; fails if still active.

Instructions

Cancel one granted ability on an editor-world actor ability system component (CancelAbilityHandle), reading its spec before and after: returns was_active, still_active and cancelled. success is false, with an error, when the ability is still active afterwards (it may not allow cancelling).

Returns: { actor_name, ability_name, was_active, still_active, cancelled } -- read back from the spec: cancelled means was_active and not still_active

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actor_nameYesObject name (not the label) of the editor-world actor, e.g. "BP_Hero_C_1", matched case-insensitively; find_actors_by_name maps labels to names
ability_nameYesAbility to match among the granted specs: the ability_name from get_active_abilities, the class name with or without _C ("GA_Jump"), the asset path ("/Game/Abilities/GA_Jump") or the class path; case-insensitive, first match wins

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / ability_name / description
      Previous value: -"Name of the ability to cancel"New value: +"Ability to match among the granted specs: the ability_name from get_active_abilities, the class name with or without _C (\"GA_Jump\"), the asset path (\"/Game/Abilities/GA_Jump\") or the class path; case-insensitive, first match wins"
    • changedInput schema / properties / actor_name / description
      Previous value: -"Name of the actor whose ability to cancel"New value: +"Object name (not the label) of the editor-world actor, e.g. \"BP_Hero_C_1\", matched case-insensitively; find_actors_by_name maps labels to names"
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructive/non-idempotent/non-readonly, and the description usefully adds behavior beyond that: it reads the spec before and after, defines success=false with an error when the ability is still active, and explains what cancelled means. It does not describe permissions or side effects on the ASC beyond the spec read-back.

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 operation and target, followed by the outcome semantics. Slightly redundant in restating the return tuple and the definition of 'cancelled', but every clause is substantive and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly supplies the return shape and the success/error condition, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the call. Only the failure/permission surface and comparison to sibling removal tools are left unspecified.

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 actor_name (label vs name, case-insensitive) and ability_name (accepted match forms, first-match-wins). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (cancel) and resource (a granted ability on an actor's ability system component via CancelAbilityHandle), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby remove_ability / activate_ability siblings, which is the only thing keeping it from 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Implies the context (an already-granted, active ability) and hints at a constraint ('it may not allow cancelling'), but never states when to pick this over remove_ability or activate_ability, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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