Skip to main content
Glama

get_blueprint_variables

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the variables a Blueprint directly declares, including name, pin category, category, and flags; excludes inherited variables, function locals, and components.

Instructions

List the variables this Blueprint DECLARES (its NewVariables): name, pin category, editor category and three flags. Inherited variables, function locals and components are NOT here. THE THREE FLAGS ARE UNRELIABLE, read off the stored variable description rather than the compiled property: instance_editable checks CPF_Edit and ignores CPF_DisableEditOnInstance, so it says true for variables the editor refuses to edit per instance; expose_on_spawn checks a property flag while set_bp_variable_metadata writes the ExposeOnSpawn METADATA, so it says false for variables that DO show up as SpawnActor pins; and expose_to_cinematics is hardcoded false. Oracles: write the placed instance for editability, the spawn node's pins for exposure, get_blueprint_variable_detailed_info for type/replication.

Returns: { blueprint_name: string, variables: [{ name, type, category, instance_editable, expose_on_spawn, expose_to_cinematics }], variable_count: int } -- "type" is only the pin CATEGORY (e.g. "struct", "object"), not the struct or class; the three booleans are the unreliable ones described above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blueprint_nameNoName of the blueprint
blueprint_pathNoAlias of `blueprint_name` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `blueprint_name`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
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), so this is context beyond the bar. The description discloses a serious data-quality caveat for each of the three flags, explaining the exact mechanism of unreliability (CPF_Edit vs CPF_DisableEditOnInstance, metadata vs property flag, hardcoded false) and the correct oracles to use instead. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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 in sentence one, and every subsequent sentence addresses a concrete pitfall rather than filler. The all-caps emphasis and terse oracle fragments make it denser than ideal, but the content earns its length given the flag landmines.

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?

Despite there being no output schema, the description spells out the full return shape inline (blueprint_name, variables array with fields, variable_count) and clarifies that 'type' is only the pin category. Combined with the exclusions and flag caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 itself explains the blueprint_path alias, so the baseline is 3. The description body adds no additional parameter meaning (no format, validation, or defaults guidance beyond the schema), so it neither exceeds nor falls below the baseline.

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 ('List the variables this Blueprint DECLARES (its NewVariables)') and immediately bounds the scope by naming what is excluded: inherited variables, function locals, and components. The declared field list (name, pin category, editor category, three flags) further pins down exactly what is returned.

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?

Gives exclusion criteria ('inherited... NOT here') and routes the agent to alternatives for specific needs: 'the placed instance for editability', 'the spawn node's pins for exposure', and 'get_blueprint_variable_detailed_info for type/replication'. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-name-twin sibling get_blueprint_variables_list, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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