Skip to main content
Glama

create_blueprint_interface

Destructive

Create a Blueprint Interface asset to define shared function signatures for unrelated classes, so callers can use one contract instead of a base class or hard-wired cases.

Instructions

Create a Blueprint Interface asset: a contract of function signatures that unrelated classes can implement, so callers talk to the contract instead of a concrete class. The right tool when several different kinds of actor must answer the same request (interactable, damageable, workable) and you do not want a shared base class -- one interface replaces N-by-M hard-wired cases. Created empty: add functions with add_blueprint_function, then implement_interface on each class and implement_interface_function per class.

Returns: { name, path, type }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAsset name (no path)
pathNoTarget content path for the new asset (default /Game/Blueprints)
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.
asset_pathNoAlias of `path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `path`.

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 only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description adds real value by disclosing that the asset is created empty and must be populated by subsequent tools, and by outlining the full implement-per-class workflow. It does not say whether an existing interface at the same path is overwritten, which is the main remaining gap.

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 definition and the when-to-use rationale, then the creation workflow, then the return shape; every sentence contributes. The middle section is dense but not padded.

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 return shape ({ name, path, type }), the creation lifecycle, and the follow-up calls, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to create and then wire up an interface 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 description coverage is 100%, including a detailed explanation of the `force` parameter and the `asset_path` alias, so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the implied name/path, making the baseline 3 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 specific verb+resource (create a Blueprint Interface asset) and then defines the concept precisely as a contract of function signatures, which distinguishes it from the sibling create_blueprint and class-creation tools. An agent can tell what it produces 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?

Gives a clear selection criterion: use it when several kinds of actor must answer the same request and you do not want a shared base class, framing the N-by-M alternative. It also names the follow-up tools (add_blueprint_function, implement_interface, implement_interface_function), but does not name a sibling tool as the explicit alternative for the base-class case.

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