Skip to main content
Glama

create_gameplay_ability_blueprint

Creates and saves a Blueprint parented to UGameplayAbility at a chosen path, returning its asset path and generated class.

Instructions

Create a Blueprint parented to UGameplayAbility at package_path/name, compile and save it; returns asset_path, generated_class and is_gameplay_ability. A GameplayAbility Blueprint already at that path is returned untouched (created false, already_existed true); a Blueprint of another class there is an error. Refused during PIE.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAsset name without a path, e.g. "GA_Fireball".
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_pathNoContent folder for the new asset, e.g. "/Game/GAS/Abilities"; defaults to /Game/Blueprints.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Asset name, e.g. GA_Fireball"New value: +"Asset name without a path, e.g. \"GA_Fireball\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / package_path / description
      Previous value: -"Target content path, defaults to /Game/Blueprints"New value: +"Content folder for the new asset, e.g. \"/Game/GAS/Abilities\"; defaults to /Game/Blueprints."
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses real behavior: the asset is compiled and saved, an existing GameplayAbility Blueprint is returned untouched (created=false, already_existed=true), a conflicting class is an error, and the operation is refused during PIE. This is well beyond what readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false convey.

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 core action, then edge-case behavior, then the return shape. The Returns block is justified because no output schema exists, though it is slightly redundant with the earlier mention of asset_path/generated_class/is_gameplay_ability.

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 correctly enumerates the return fields, and it covers the mutation, conflict, and PIE cases. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the meaningful composition rule that the asset lands at package_path/name and that name is path-less. The force semantics are covered in the schema rather than the description, so it only modestly exceeds baseline.

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 precise verb+resource: create a Blueprint parented to UGameplayAbility at package_path/name, then compile and save. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling creators (create_blueprint, create_gameplay_effect_blueprint, create_attribute_set_blueprint) by naming the exact parent class.

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 operating conditions: it is refused during PIE (with the reason and the force escape hatch), and describes what happens when a Blueprint already exists at the path versus when a different class occupies it. It does not explicitly point to a sibling for other Blueprint parents, but the scope is unambiguous.

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