Skip to main content
Glama

create_player_controller_class_bp

Idempotent

Creates a Blueprint subclass of APlayerController, registers it, and marks it dirty for saving. Re-running returns the existing Blueprint if the parent matches; otherwise, it errors.

Instructions

Create a Blueprint subclass of APlayerController, 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 APlayerController.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false): it discloses that the asset is created but NOT saved, names the persistence tool, defines the already_exists return semantics, and specifies that a mismatched parent is an error leaving the existing asset untouched.

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 action and scope in the first clause, then layers idempotency semantics, then the return shape. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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, yet the description supplies the return fields, the unsaved-state caveat, and the idempotency/error semantics; the PIE refusal is covered in the force parameter's schema text. Nothing an agent needs to call and follow up correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the idempotent relationship between parent_class and an existing Blueprint, that parent_class is read off the Blueprint, and the already_exists output field. It adds value beyond the schema's per-parameter 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?

States a specific verb+resource (create a Blueprint subclass of APlayerController) and immediately distinguishes it from generic creation tools by noting it is registered/dirty but unsaved. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like create_game_mode_class_bp or set_player_controller_class without opening the 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?

Gives clear follow-up guidance ('persist it with save_asset') and precise idempotency behavior for re-runs, including the error case when the parent differs. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling set_player_controller_class or create_blueprint, leaving the when-to-use-vs-alternatives only implied.

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