Skip to main content
Glama

create_gameplay_cue_notify_static

Create or reuse a static, non-instanced UGameplayCueNotify Blueprint, compile and save it, and optionally assign a registered gameplay cue tag; refused during PIE.

Instructions

Create a Blueprint parented to UGameplayCueNotify_Static (non-instanced, one-shot) at package_path/name, 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. A registered gameplay_cue_tag is written to the CDO; an unregistered one only yields cue_tag_set=false. Refused during PIE.

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 without a path, 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_pathNoContent folder for the new asset, e.g. "/Game/GAS/Cues"; defaults to /Game/Blueprints.
gameplay_cue_tagNoRegistered gameplay tag written as GameplayCueTag and GameplayCueName, e.g. "GameplayCue.Hit"; an unregistered tag is skipped (cue_tag_set=false), not an error.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / gameplay_cue_tag / description
      Previous value: -"Optional registered GameplayCue tag to set on the CDO"New value: +"Registered gameplay tag written as GameplayCueTag and GameplayCueName, e.g. \"GameplayCue.Hit\"; an unregistered tag is skipped (cue_tag_set=false), not an error."
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Asset name, e.g. GCN_Hit"New value: +"Asset name without a path, e.g. \"GCN_Hit\"."
    • 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/Cues\"; 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 compile-and-save behavior, idempotent-style reuse with created/already_existed flags, the class-mismatch error, tag-write-to-CDO with cue_tag_set=false for unregistered tags, and a PIE refusal with a concrete hazard rationale. Annotations only give the coarse write/safety profile; the description carries the meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the create/class/reuse contract before the tag and PIE caveats. The parenthetical clarifications and Returns block earn their place, though the prose is at the upper bound of what a short definition should carry.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (name, asset_path, cue_tag_set, already_existed, created, etc.). Combined with the error/refusal cases and reuse semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value on top: it clarifies package_path/name path construction, the default folder, and that an unregistered gameplay_cue_tag is silently skipped rather than errored. This is supplementary meaning beyond the per-parameter schema text.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('Create a Blueprint parented to UGameplayCueNotify_Static'), and immediately distinguishes the asset from siblings by qualifying it as 'non-instanced, one-shot'. An agent can tell it apart from create_gameplay_cue_notify_actor/burst/looping without opening any 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?

Usage conditions are clear: reuse semantics ('or reuse the one of that class already there'), the class-mismatch error case, and the PIE refusal are all spelled out. It stops short of naming the sibling tools ('for an instanced cue use create_gameplay_cue_notify_actor'), so routing is inferred from the class qualifier rather than stated.

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