Skip to main content
Glama

get_function_pins

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview the exact pins a UFunction call node would have without creating it, so blueprint graphs can be built in one call instead of round-trips.

Instructions

Preview the EXACT pins a call_function / add_call_library_function node WOULD expose for a UFunction WITHOUT creating anything: owner_class, is_pure, is_static, exec_input/exec_output ("execute"/"then", null when pure), self_pin (null when static), input_params, output_params and return_value. This is what lets a whole build_blueprint_graph (nodes + connections + pin_defaults) be written in ONE call instead of create -> get_graph_nodes -> connect round-trips. It answers "what pins would it have", NOT "can a Blueprint call it": some engine functions resolve and preview here and are still rejected by the compiler, so the oracle for callability is compile_blueprint + get_compile_errors.

Returns: { function_name, owner_class, is_pure, is_static, exec_input, exec_output, self_pin, input_params:[{name,type}], output_params:[{name,type}], return_value:{name,type}|null, note }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_classNoOptional class searched FIRST: native name ("KismetSystemLibrary"), "/Script/Module.Class", a Blueprint class path ("/Game/...X_C"), or a user BFL. Also always searched: the blueprint's own class + KismetSystem/GameplayStatics/KismetMath.
function_nameYesUFunction name, matched EXACTLY against the reflected name (e.g. "PrintString", "K2_GetActorLocation", or a Blueprint function graph's own name, which may contain spaces like "Emit Noise At Location"). A guessed name that does not exist just errors -- it never returns an empty preview.
blueprint_nameNoOptional Blueprint whose generated class joins the search (for self / BP-local functions).
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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context: it creates nothing, it can preview engine functions that the compiler later rejects, and unknown names error rather than returning an empty preview. It doesn't detail pagination or search-scope edge cases beyond target_class, but the added context is substantive.

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 purpose and payoff, then the outputs, then the critical caveat about callability. Dense and information-rich. Slightly long and the field enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema, but nearly every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only preview tool with a fully-described schema and rich annotations, the description is complete: it explains purpose, scope, the caveat about compiler rejection, the exact return shape, and the workflow it enables. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and parameter descriptions are rich (exact-name matching, search scope, alias note for blueprint_path). The description mostly repeats the field list rather than adding new param meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb (Preview) and resource (exact pins a call_function/add_call_library_function node WOULD expose) and even enumerates the return fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from build_blueprint_graph, get_graph_nodes, and connect round-trips it mentions. An agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 bounds when to use it ('what pins would it have', NOT 'can a Blueprint call it') and names the alternative oracle for callability (compile_blueprint + get_compile_errors). It also explains why to use it (writing a whole graph in one call). Strong when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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