Skip to main content
Glama

fork_class_chain

Destructive

Creates a thin child Blueprint from a base class at a specified name/path and optionally reparents an existing Blueprint onto it, with guarded verification in one call.

Instructions

One-call thin-fork + optional reparent + verify: collapses the create->reparent->verify pattern into a single call. It creates a NEW thin child Blueprint of base_class at fork_name (the seam you insert between a shared-library base and your own class), optionally tags it with the fork-origin metadata tag (project setting ForkOriginTag), saves it, and then -- only if reparent_target is given -- reparents that existing Blueprint onto the new fork through the guarded reparent_blueprint_safe path (snapshot + compile flags + post-check + rollback) and reports its verification. WARNING: no durable backup is taken -- the rollback is in-memory only, so call backup_asset yourself first if you want a rollback-to-disk safety net.

Returns: { fork_name, fork_path, fork_generated_class, base_class, already_exists, fork_origin_set, saved, save_error?, reparent:{...safe-reparent result...}|null, verification, verification_checks, error?, success }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoOptional folder for fork_name when it is a bare name (default /Game/Blueprints).
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.
fork_nameYesName or full /Game path for the NEW thin child Blueprint to create.
asset_pathNoAlias of `path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `path`.
base_classYesParent class for the new fork (native /Script, /Game/.../BP.BP_C, or a BP asset path).
fork_originNoOptional: value stored in the fork's fork-origin metadata tag (project setting ForkOriginTag, default 'mcp.forkOrigin'), recording its fork lineage.
auto_rollbackNoOptional (default true): forwarded to the safe reparent of reparent_target.
reparent_targetNoOptional: an existing Blueprint to reparent onto the new fork.
rename_colliding_varsNoOptional (default false): forwarded to the safe reparent of reparent_target.

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?

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses the operational sequence, that rollback is in-memory only with 'no durable backup', the PIE guard-rail behavior and why force=true is risky, and that fork-origin tagging depends on the ForkOriginTag project setting. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the opening is a dense run-on with stacked parentheticals, and the enumerated returns duplication makes it harder to parse than necessary. Appropriately sized for a 9-parameter composite mutation, just not ideally structured.

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 exists, so the description enumerates the return keys, and it covers the guard rails, the backup caveat, the optional-branch semantics, and the already_exists case. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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. The description adds real meaning on top: it explains that fork_name is 'the seam you insert between a shared-library base and your own class', clarifies fork_origin's lineage-tag purpose, and distinguishes the optional reparent_target branch from the unconditional create/save.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('creates a NEW thin child Blueprint of base_class at fork_name') and frames itself against the multi-step sibling pattern it replaces ('collapses the create->reparent->verify pattern into a single call'). An agent can distinguish it from create_blueprint or reparent_blueprint without opening the schema.

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 clear context: use this to collapse create/reparent/verify, pass reparent_target only when you want reparenting, and call backup_asset first if you want a disk safety net. It doesn't explicitly compare against the standalone create_blueprint/reparent_blueprint_safe/verify_reparent_success path, so the alternative routing is implied rather than stated.

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