Skip to main content
Glama

create_hud_class_bp

Idempotent

Create an AHUD Blueprint subclass to set up a HUD in Unreal Engine. It is registered as dirty but not saved; persist it with save_asset.

Instructions

Create a Blueprint subclass of AHUD, registered and marked dirty but not saved (persist it with save_asset). Idempotent on re-run: a Blueprint already at that path whose parent derives from parent_class is returned with already_exists=true; one with another parent is an error and is left untouched. parent_class is read off the Blueprint.

Returns: { asset_name, asset_path, package_class, parent_class, already_exists }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
asset_nameYesName for the new Blueprint asset.
package_pathNoTarget content folder; defaults to /Game/MCP.
parent_classYesParent class name; must derive from AHUD.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the asset is registered and marked dirty but not saved, idempotent re-run returns already_exists=true, a conflicting parent produces an error and leaves the asset untouched. The force parameter description further documents PIE refusal and its consequences.

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-loaded with the core action, then persistence contract, then idempotency/error semantics, then return shape. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (asset_name, asset_path, package_class, parent_class, already_exists). Combined with the dirty-not-saved contract and idempotency rules, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters including the force/PIE caveat and the AHUD derivation requirement. The description adds only the minor note that parent_class is read off the Blueprint, which is marginal beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: creating a Blueprint subclass of AHUD, which cleanly distinguishes it from the large family of sibling class-BP creators (create_game_mode_class_bp, create_player_controller_class_bp, etc.) that differ only by parent class. The exact asset type and parent constraint are unambiguous.

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 next-step routing ('persist it with save_asset') and explains re-run behavior, so an agent knows how this fits into a workflow. It does not explicitly name which sibling creator to use for other parent classes, but the AHUD constraint effectively scopes it.

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