Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

create_control_rig_blueprint

Idempotent

Create and save a compiled Control Rig Blueprint asset in Unreal Engine, returning the existing asset if present. Refuses during Play-in-Editor unless forced.

Instructions

Create a Control Rig Blueprint (non-modular) at package_path/name with UControlRigBlueprintFactory, compile it and save it. Idempotent: an existing Control Rig Blueprint there is returned unchanged (already_existed=true). Returns asset_path, generated_class, is_control_rig and saved; refused while PIE runs unless force is set.

Returns: { asset_path: string, name: string, generated_class: string, is_control_rig: bool, created: bool, already_existed: bool, saved: bool, save_error: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAsset name of the Control Rig Blueprint, e.g. "CR_Hero"
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_pathYesContent folder starting with "/", e.g. "/Game/Rigs"; a trailing slash is ignored

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Asset name for the new Control Rig blueprint"New value: +"Asset name of the Control Rig Blueprint, e.g. \"CR_Hero\""
    • changedInput schema / properties / package_path / description
      Previous value: -"UE content folder, e.g. /Game/MyGame"New value: +"Content folder starting with \"/\", e.g. \"/Game/Rigs\"; a trailing slash is ignored"
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the compile+save side effects, the idempotent return value already_existed=true, the PIE refusal rule with the underlying reason (CheckForWorldGCLeaks is Fatal, writes may be silently skipped), and the save_error surface. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 in the first clause, followed by idempotency, returns, and the PIE constraint. Slight redundancy in listing the return fields both inline and in the 'Returns:' block, but overall tight and well ordered.

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 carries the full return contract (asset_path, generated_class, is_control_rig, created, already_existed, saved, save_error), plus the compile/save side effects and the PIE precondition. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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% and the schema's own force description is more detailed than the description's PIE note, so the description adds little parameter meaning beyond what is already documented. The mention of force and the 'trailing slash ignored' path convention are useful but repeat structured content; 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('Create a Control Rig Blueprint (non-modular)'), states the target location convention (package_path/name), and even names the implementing factory (UControlRigBlueprintFactory). The 'non-modular' qualifier implicitly separates it from a modular sibling, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

It gives clear usage context: it compiles and saves on creation, is idempotent (an existing asset is returned unchanged rather than erroring), and is refused during PIE unless force is set, with advice to stop PIE and retry. It does not name a sibling tool as the alternative for the modular case, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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