Skip to main content
Glama

compile_anim_blueprint

Destructive

Compile an Animation Blueprint synchronously and save its package, even on failure, returning status, errors, and warnings. Refused during PIE unless forced.

Instructions

Compile an Animation Blueprint synchronously and save its package, even when the compile fails; returns status (EBlueprintStatus name), is_up_to_date, has_error and the error and warning messages with their counts. Refused while PIE runs unless force=true. Use get_anim_blueprint_info to inspect without compiling.

Returns: { anim_blueprint_path: string, compiled: bool, status: string, is_up_to_date: bool, has_error: bool, error_count: int, warning_count: int, errors: [string], warnings: [string], saved: bool, save_error?: string }

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.
blueprint_nameNoAlias of `anim_blueprint_path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `anim_blueprint_path`.
anim_blueprint_pathNoPath to the UAnimBlueprint asset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by disclosing that compilation is synchronous, that the package is saved even when the compile fails, and that the call is refused during PIE unless forced. The param description even explains the underlying PIE hazard (CheckForWorldGCLeaks is Fatal). Strong, though it doesn't cover e.g. what happens to unsaved state on failure.

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-loads purpose, then the PIE restriction, then the sibling routing, then the return shape. Tight and well-ordered; the explicit Returns block is long but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape (compiled, status, counts, errors, saved), the PIE refusal/force behavior, and the read-only sibling for inspection. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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% and the schema itself carries rich per-parameter text (the force semantics, the alias rationale), so the description adds little parameter meaning beyond restating force=true. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb (compile) and resource (Animation Blueprint), plus the noteworthy scope that it saves the package synchronously and even on failure. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_anim_blueprint_info by naming it as the non-compiling alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use alternative ('Use get_anim_blueprint_info to inspect without compiling') and a clear when-not/exception ('Refused while PIE runs unless force=true'). The routing and the failure condition are both 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