Skip to main content
Glama

create_gameplay_mod_magnitude_calculation_blueprint

Build and compile a Blueprint subclassing UGameplayModMagnitudeCalculation for GameplayEffect modifiers, saving it to disk. Returns any existing asset at the path untouched.

Instructions

Create a Blueprint parented to UGameplayModMagnitudeCalculation (a custom magnitude calc class for GE modifiers), compile and save it. A Blueprint of that class already at the path is returned untouched (created false, already_existed true); one of another class there is an error.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAsset name, e.g. MMC_Damage
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

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?

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation creates, compiles AND saves (a multi-step mutation), and describes how an existing asset at the path is handled. It does not, however, surface the severe PIE-refusal behavior in the description body itself; that critical warning lives only in the force parameter schema.

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 with the core action, followed by the pre-existence rule and a compact return-shape block. Every sentence is useful, though the return block is somewhat dense in inline parentheses.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the exact return shape (name, asset_path, parent_class, generated_class, is_mod_magnitude_calculation, already_existed, created), compensating for the gap. Annotations cover safety, schema covers parameters, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, force, and package_path in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (create), a precise resource (a Blueprint parented to UGameplayModMagnitudeCalculation, described as a custom magnitude calc class for GE modifiers), and that it also compiles and saves. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_blueprint or create_gameplay_effect_blueprint.

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 pre-existence semantics clearly: an existing Blueprint of the target class is returned untouched, while one of another class is an error. This tells the agent what to expect on repeat calls, but it never names an alternative tool or explicitly states when to prefer this over a generic Blueprint creation tool.

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