Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

disconnect_anim_graph_pins

Destructive

Break an AnimGraph source-to-target pin link, or all links on a source pin, to rewire animation logic. Saves the Blueprint; recompile after edits.

Instructions

Break AnimGraph pin links: a specific source->target link, or ALL links on the source pin. Use the specific form to insert a node into an existing chain (break A->B, then wire A->N and N->B). Saves the ABP but does NOT recompile it -- run compile_anim_blueprint after your edits for runtime effect.

Returns: { disconnected, broke_all, source_node_id, source_pin, saved }

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.
graph_nameNoTarget graph (optional, default the top-level AnimGraph).
source_pinYesPin name on the source node.
target_pinNoPin name on the target node (optional; required if target_node_id is given).
blueprint_nameNoAlias of `anim_blueprint_path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `anim_blueprint_path`.
source_node_idYesNodeGuid of the source node.
target_node_idNoNodeGuid of the target node (optional; if omitted, breaks ALL links on source_pin).
anim_blueprint_pathNoPath/name of the UAnimBlueprint.

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?

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it saves the ABP but does NOT recompile it, and it spells out the return shape ({disconnected, broke_all, ...}), so the agent knows a follow-up compile is required for runtime effect. The PIE refusal caveat lives in the schema, not the description, so this isn't maximal.

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 the canonical use case, then the crucial save/recompile caveat in three tight sentences, plus a returns line. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, yet the description supplies the return fields and the essential post-edit workflow (save vs compile), which is the critical missing context for a mutation tool. It's complete enough to call correctly, though it could note the PIE restriction inline.

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%, and each parameter carries a rich description (including the force/PIE caveat and the blueprint_name alias note), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the source->target relationship and doesn't add format details beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource (break AnimGraph pin links) and disambiguates the two modes: a specific source->target link vs ALL links on the source pin. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like connect_anim_graph_pins and disconnect_pin.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use scenario (insert a node into an existing chain by breaking A->B and rewiring through N) and routes the agent to compile_anim_blueprint afterward. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer the break-all form versus the specific form beyond the parameter semantics, but the context is clear.

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