Skip to main content
Glama

export_blueprint_data

Export a Blueprint asset's summary to JSON or TXT, including parent class, compile status, graph counts and names, and variable details. Inspect Blueprint structure without modifying or compiling it.

Instructions

Load a Blueprint asset and write a summary of it to a new file Saved/Exports/Blueprints/_<YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS>.json or .txt in the project: parent class, compile status, counts of function graphs, event graphs and variables, function graph names, and member variables (name, pin type, category; JSON adds public and editable flags). No graph nodes; the Blueprint is not modified or compiled. Errors if the asset is missing or not a Blueprint; an unsupported format writes nothing (export_success=false). For an inline reply use get_blueprint_info; for a full dump, export_asset_as_text.

Returns: { blueprint_path: string, export_format: string, export_success: bool, export_message: string, export_file_path: string, export_file_name: string, export_file_size_bytes: int, export_file_size_mb: number, blueprint_class: string, package_name: string, original_file_size_bytes: int, original_file_size_mb: number, export_timestamp: string, export_status: string, export_directory: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
export_formatYesExport format: 'json' or 'txt'.
blueprint_nameNoAlias of `blueprint_path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `blueprint_path`.
blueprint_pathNoFull path to the blueprint asset (e.g., '/Game/MyBlueprint').

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only mark it as a non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description discloses the exact output path convention, the field set written (parent class, compile status, graph/variable counts, names, member variables), that no graph nodes are included, and that the Blueprint is neither modified nor compiled. It also states the error semantics (missing/non-Blueprint asset) and the fallback for an unsupported format producing export_success=false.

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 action and destination, then content, then constraints, then sibling routing. It is dense and every clause carries information, though the long run-on phrasing and the full Returns enumeration make it heavier than a tight 5 would need.

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 is declared, and the description compensates by listing the complete return object (success flag, paths, sizes, class, timestamps, status). Combined with the error and no-write cases, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it explains that the format param changes output content (JSON adds public and editable flags) and that an unsupported format writes nothing and yields export_success=false. That is genuine behavioral detail about export_format rather than a restatement of the enum.

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 ('load') and resource ('Blueprint asset') and the concrete artifact produced: a summary file at Saved/Exports/Blueprints/<Name>_<timestamp>.json/.txt. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_blueprint_info and export_asset_as_text, so an agent can route correctly 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 alternatives and the condition selecting them: 'For an inline reply use get_blueprint_info; for a full dump, export_asset_as_text.' This is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-siblings statement rather than implied usage.

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