Skip to main content
Glama

execute_console_command

Destructive

Run editor-side console commands in Unreal Engine, such as cvars, stat overlays, and r.* toggles. Does not reach a running PIE session; use execute_python for player cheats and pawn movement.

Instructions

Run a console command through the EDITOR (GEditor->Exec against the editor world): cvars, stat overlays, r.* toggles, engine commands. WARNING: it does NOT reach a running PIE session's PlayerController, so player cheats like BugItGo come back handled:false -- to move or cheat a PIE pawn use execute_python against the anchored PIE world. handled is the engine's own "some Exec claimed this string", not proof of an effect: verify with the state (get_cvar, a property read), never with this bool.

Returns: { command: string, handled: bool (an Exec handler claimed the string -- not evidence the effect happened) }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoAlias of `command` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `command`.
scriptNoAlias of `command` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `command`.
commandNoConsole command line, e.g. 'stat fps', 'r.ScreenPercentage 50', 'ShowFlag.Grid 0'. Editor-side only.

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 declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds high-value context beyond them: the PIE reach limitation, the crucial caveat that `handled` means 'some Exec claimed this string' and is not proof of effect, and the recommended verification path (get_cvar, property read). This corrects an easy-to-make misuse of the return value.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then a WARNING block and a Returns block. Every part is useful, though the meaning of `handled` is stated twice (in the WARNING and again in Returns), a minor redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description supplies the return shape ({ command, handled }) and warns how to interpret it, alongside scope and the sibling alternative. Nothing essential to invoking or correctly interpreting the call is missing.

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% and the schema already documents all three parameters including the alias semantics for `code` and `script`. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the 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 specific verb (run a console command) and names the exact execution path (GEditor->Exec against the editor world), plus concrete examples (cvars, stat overlays, r.* toggles, engine commands). It clearly differentiates itself from the python-execution siblings by scope.

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?

Explicitly states the negative case (does NOT reach a running PIE session's PlayerController, e.g. BugItGo returns handled:false) and names the concrete alternative (execute_python against the anchored PIE world). This is a model when/when-not/alternative statement.

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