Skip to main content
Glama

get_compile_errors

Destructive

Compile a Blueprint and return its compiler error and warning counts plus messages, so you can verify whether the asset builds successfully.

Instructions

WARNING: despite the get_ prefix this COMPILES the Blueprint (silently) and then returns its error/warning count and every message with severity -- it is a mutation, not a read: compiling dirties the package, can cascade into other packages, and can knock a Blueprint's placed OFPA instances out of the world in memory (get_actors_by_class then returns 0 in editor AND PIE; load_level of the same map brings them back). Use it as the honest oracle for "does this BP build" -- num_errors and the message list are real, read off the compiler results log -- and reach for check_blueprint_errors / find_erroring_blueprints when a compile is not what you want.

Returns: { name: string, num_errors: int, num_warnings: int, succeeded: bool (num_errors == 0), messages: [{ severity: 'error'|'warning'|'info', message: string }] }

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.
blueprint_nameNoBlueprint name or full asset path (e.g. BP_MyActor or /Game/MyGame/Core/BP_MyActor).
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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: compiling dirties the package, can cascade into other packages, and can evict OFPA instances from the world in memory (get_actors_by_class returns 0; load_level restores them). This is high-value side-effect disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 warning is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence addresses a distinct hazard (mutation, cascade, OFPA eviction, oracle use, alternatives). It is dense, but the length is justified for a misleadingly-named destructive tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the return shape (name, num_errors, num_warnings, succeeded, messages). Combined with the side-effect and PIE-refusal disclosures and named alternatives, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters (force, blueprint_name, blueprint_path alias) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds behavioral context for the mutation but no parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource (compiles the Blueprint and returns error/warning counts plus messages) and explicitly names the misleading 'get_' prefix. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools check_blueprint_errors and find_erroring_blueprints, so an agent can route correctly.

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 says to use it as 'the honest oracle for does this BP build' and to reach for check_blueprint_errors / find_erroring_blueprints when a compile is not wanted. It also states the PIE-refusal precondition and the force=true escape hatch.

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