Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

diff_blueprint_graphs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare one named graph between two Blueprints or AnimBlueprints to see added, removed, and changed nodes, pin defaults, links, and AnimGraph node configs. Read-only and focused.

Instructions

Diff ONE named graph across two Blueprints or AnimBlueprints: which nodes were added, removed and changed, with per-pin default-value and link changes and, for AnimGraph nodes, the FAnimNode config and property-binding differences. The focused, far cheaper subset of diff_blueprints for when you already know the single graph you care about (an "AnimGraph", a function, a collapsed composite). Same NodeGuid matching caveat: it compares a fork against its original meaningfully, but two independently authored Blueprints show every node as added/removed. Read-only.

Returns: { blueprint_a, blueprint_b, graph_name, resolved_graph_a, resolved_graph_b, node_count_a, node_count_b, nodes_added, nodes_removed, nodes_changed, truncated, nodes_examined_a, nodes_examined_b, total_differences }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_nodesNoCap on GUID-matched nodes examined (default 20000).
graph_nameNoGraph to diff (deep-resolved: function/event/macro/AnimGraph or a collapsed composite by title). Defaults to the event graph.
blueprint_aYesFirst Blueprint asset path or short name.
blueprint_bYesSecond Blueprint asset path or short name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes beyond them with the NodeGuid matching semantics (the meaningfulness caveat), the relative cost claim ('far cheaper'), and the truncation/max_nodes behavior implied by the returned 'truncated'/'nodes_examined_*' fields. 'Read-only' is redundant with annotations but consistent, not contradictory.

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-loads the specific action, then the sibling differentiation, then the caveat, then the return shape — a logical order with no filler. It is dense and slightly long, and the redundant 'Read-only' tag is the only sentence that does not add to structured data.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating every returned field (resolved graphs, node counts, added/removed/changed, truncation flags, total_differences), and it covers the read-only, scope and matching-semantics dimensions an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 four parameters are already documented (including graph_name's deep-resolution and event-graph default and max_nodes' cap). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 precise verb+resource+scope: diff ONE named graph across two Blueprints/AnimBlueprints, enumerating exactly what is compared (nodes added/removed/changed, per-pin defaults and links, FAnimNode config). It explicitly positions itself against the sibling diff_blueprints as 'the focused, far cheaper subset ... for when you already know the single graph you care about'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you already know the single graph you care about') and names the alternative (diff_blueprints) it is a subset of. It also adds a genuine applicability caveat: NodeGuid matching makes fork-vs-original comparisons meaningful while independently authored Blueprints show every node as added/removed.

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