Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

create_editor_utility_widget_blueprint

Create, compile, and save an Editor Utility Widget Blueprint with a CanvasPanel root in Unreal Engine. Existing assets stay unchanged, and the saved widget can be opened as an editor tab.

Instructions

Create, compile and save an Editor Utility Widget Blueprint (parent UEditorUtilityWidget) with a CanvasPanel root at package_path/name. Returns asset_path, root_widget, root_widget_class, created, already_existed and saved; an existing one is returned unchanged. Open it as a tab with run_editor_utility_widget. Refused during PIE unless force.

Returns: { name, package_path, asset_path, blueprint_class, parent_class, root_widget, root_widget_class, created, already_existed, root_created, saved, save_error }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAsset name without path or extension, e.g. "EUW_LevelTools".
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 for the asset, e.g. "/Game/EditorUtilities"; 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 (no extension)"New value: +"Asset name without path or extension, e.g. \"EUW_LevelTools\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / package_path / description
      Previous value: -"/Game folder to create the asset in (e.g. /Game/EditorUtilities)"New value: +"Content folder for the asset, e.g. \"/Game/EditorUtilities\"; a trailing slash is ignored."
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond that: the PIE refusal rule, the returned-unchanged behavior for pre-existing assets, and the save_error signal. It does not mention whether compilation can fail the call or what happens on partial success, but coverage is solid.

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 the action and resource, then routing and constraints. However, the return-value list is duplicated: a prose enumeration in the first paragraph and a second 'Returns: {...}' block, which is redundant payload.

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 carries return-field disclosure and it does so thoroughly (including created/already_existed/saved/save_error). Combined with the PIE constraint and the sibling handoff to run_editor_utility_widget, an agent has almost everything needed, though compile-failure behavior is unaddressed.

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%, so both package_path and name are already documented with examples, and the lengthy force semantics live in the schema description. The description only restates the package_path/name composition and the force/PIE rule, adding little beyond the schema; 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 chain (Create, compile and save) with a precise resource: an Editor Utility Widget Blueprint with parent UEditorUtilityWidget and a CanvasPanel root, at package_path/name. Very concrete, but it never explicitly differentiates from the similarly named sibling create_editor_utility_blueprint or create_widget_blueprint, so a small selection ambiguity remains.

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 clear routing context: use run_editor_utility_widget to open the result as a tab, and the operation is refused during PIE unless force. It also explains the idempotent behavior (existing asset returned unchanged). Lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over create_editor_utility_blueprint or create_widget_blueprint.

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