Skip to main content
Glama

create_gameplay_cue_notify_looping

Create or reuse a compiled, saved Blueprint parented to AGameplayCueNotify_Looping for gameplay cue notifications in Unreal Engine, with optional cue tag setup.

Instructions

Create a Blueprint parented to AGameplayCueNotify_Looping (modern instanced looping 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_Aura
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive; description adds real value by disclosing the reuse behavior (created:false, already_existed:true), the compiled+saved side effect, and the error-on-wrong-parent rule. Doesn't cover the PIE refusal that lives only in the force param.

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 creation statement followed by the reuse rule and a structured return enumeration. Slightly dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, and the description handily enumerates the return shape. Combined with the 100%-covered parameter docs covering the PIE hazard, the definition is nearly self-sufficient.

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; description goes beyond by explaining the return fields and the reuse semantics tied to name. The risky force/PIE behavior is documented in the schema, not the description, so no extra credit there.

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 AGameplayCueNotify_Looping) and the reuse-vs-error branching behavior. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_gameplay_cue_notify_burst/static/actor and set_gameplay_cue_notify_looping_properties.

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?

Implies context ('modern instanced looping notify') and states reuse/error conditions, but doesn't explicitly say when to pick this sibling over burst/static variants. Still clear enough to route an agent that needs a looping notify.

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