Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

diff_blueprints

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two Unreal Blueprints structurally by parent class, components, variables, functions, and per-graph node changes; use it to check a fork against its original.

Instructions

Structural diff of TWO Blueprints (or AnimBlueprints): parent class, SCS components, variables, functions, and per graph a node-by-node diff of what was added, removed and changed, where a changed node reports its title, per-pin default-value and link changes and -- for AnimGraph nodes -- the internal FAnimNode config and property-binding differences. WARNING: nodes are matched by NodeGuid, which duplicating or forking an asset PRESERVES: this is built to compare a fork against its original, and two independently authored Blueprints will show every single node as added/removed, which is noise, not a finding. Read-only. Siblings: diff_blueprint_graphs for ONE named graph, diff_blueprint_components for components only, get_blueprint_component_overrides for per-property provenance, compare_objects for two LIVE UObjects instead of authored structure. Watch graphs_not_examined[] -- when the node budget runs out the remaining graphs are listed there instead of being reported as identical.

Returns: { blueprint_a, blueprint_b, a_path, b_path, a_class, b_class, parent_class:{a,b,changed}, components:{added,removed,changed}, variables:{added,removed,changed}, functions:{added,removed,common}, graphs:[{graph_name, nodes_added, nodes_removed, nodes_changed, node_count_a, node_count_b, nodes_examined_a, nodes_examined_b, truncated}], graphs_identical:[string], graphs_not_examined:[{graph_name, reason}], graphs_only_in_a, graphs_only_in_b, truncated, max_nodes, max_nodes_per_graph, nodes_examined, total_differences }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_nodesNoTOTAL cap on nodes examined across every graph (default 20000). When it runs out, the remaining graphs are listed in graphs_not_examined[] instead of being silently reported as identical.
blueprint_aYesFirst Blueprint asset path or short name.
blueprint_bYesSecond Blueprint asset path or short name.
max_nodes_per_graphNoPer-graph cap so one fat graph cannot starve the rest (default = max_nodes).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the NodeGuid matching semantic and its failure mode, and the truncation behavior where exhausted budget surfaces graphs in `graphs_not_examined[]` rather than as false 'identical' results. This is exactly the extra context the lower bar for annotated tools rewards.

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?

Core purpose and the sibling alternatives are front-loaded, and the trailing returns enumeration earns its length because there is no output schema. The opening sentence, however, is an extremely long comma-chained run-on that is harder to parse than it needs to be, costing some structural clarity.

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 carries the full return-shape burden and does so thoroughly (fields, per-graph truncation flags, aggregate counters). Combined with the usage warnings and read-only disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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; the description earns above baseline by explaining the cross-parameter relationship—that `max_nodes` distributes across every graph and its exhaustion populates `graphs_not_examined[]`, and that `max_nodes_per_graph` prevents one fat graph from starving the rest.

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 (structural diff) over a specific resource (TWO Blueprints/AnimBlueprints) and enumerates exactly what is compared (parent class, SCS components, variables, functions, per-graph node diffs). It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (diff_blueprint_graphs, diff_blueprint_components, compare_objects), so an agent can route 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use via the sibling map (one graph vs components-only vs live UObjects) and, unusually, a when-NOT-to-use: the NodeGuid matching warning states that two independently authored Blueprints will show every node as added/removed and that this is 'noise, not a finding.' That exclusion is precisely the guidance an agent needs.

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