Skip to main content
Glama

create_gameplay_cue_notify_burst

Creates or reuses a UGameplayCueNotify_Burst Blueprint, compiles and saves it, and optionally assigns a GameplayCue tag for one-shot visual or audio effects in Unreal Engine 5.

Instructions

Create a Blueprint parented to UGameplayCueNotify_Burst (modern non-instanced one-shot notify), compile and save it, or reuse the one of that class already there (created false, already_existed true); a Blueprint of another class there is an error.

Returns: { name: string, asset_path: string, parent_class: string, generated_class: string, is_gameplay_cue_notify: bool, cue_tag_set: bool, cue_tag_requested: string, cue_tag: string, already_existed: bool, created: bool }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAsset name, e.g. GCN_Hit
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 content path, defaults to /Game/Blueprints
gameplay_cue_tagNoOptional registered GameplayCue tag to set on the CDO

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 declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it discloses compile+save behavior, the reuse branch, and the class-mismatch error. The deep PIE refusal/force caveat lives in the schema rather than the description, which is a minor gap but the annotation bar is already low.

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?

Front-loads the create action, then the reuse branch and error condition, then the return shape. Every clause carries signal and nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the full return object shape, which compensates. Combined with annotations and a 100%-covered schema, an agent has what it needs; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 the schema already documents name, force, package_path, and gameplay_cue_tag in detail (the force description even explains the PIE fatal-error risk). The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the return shape, 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+resource (create a Blueprint parented to UGameplayCueNotify_Burst), plus the compile/save side effects and reuse semantics. The parent class and 'modern non-instanced one-shot notify' qualifier distinguish it cleanly from siblings like create_gameplay_cue_notify_looping, _static, and _actor.

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?

Explains the important reuse path (if one of that class already exists, it is reused with created=false/already_existed=true) and the failure condition (a Blueprint of another class there is an error). It does not explicitly route the agent to the looping/static/actor siblings by name, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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