Skip to main content
Glama

create_camera_shake_blueprint

Idempotent

Create, compile, and save a Blueprint subclass of UCameraShakeBase for camera shake effects in Unreal Engine; reuse it if it already exists.

Instructions

Create a Blueprint asset parented to UCameraShakeBase, compile and save it. UCameraShakeBase is abstract but Blueprintable; the generated Blueprint subclass is concrete. Idempotent: if the asset already exists it is loaded and returned.

Returns: { name: string, asset_path: string, parent_class: string, generated_class: string, is_camera_shake: bool, already_existed: bool, created: bool }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAsset name (e.g. BP_ExplosionShake)
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.
package_pathNoTarget /Game package path (optional, default "/Game/Blueprints")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces idempotency while explaining that an existing asset is loaded and returned rather than overwritten. It also discloses the full return shape (created/already_existed), valuable since there is no output schema, though it omits the PIE-refusal hazard that the schema carries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the class-level why, then idempotency, then the return contract. 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?

Given a mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a documented return shape, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is created, idempotency, and outputs; only the PIE constraint is left entirely to the schema.

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 fully documents name, force, and package_path. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Create) and resource (a Blueprint asset parented to UCameraShakeBase), and explains the compile-and-save behavior plus the abstract-vs-concrete class relationship. This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like create_blueprint or create_camera_asset.

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?

Conveys the core context (idempotent create-or-load of a camera shake Blueprint) but does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it. The key conditional behavior is about PIE sessions, but that guidance lives in the schema's force parameter rather than the description.

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