Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

implement_interface_function

DestructiveIdempotent

Create or resolve the graph that implements an interface member, selecting a function graph or event override and returning the graph name or node ID for wiring.

Instructions

Create or resolve the graph that IMPLEMENTS an interface member (or a parent virtual) and return a graph_name you can immediately wire with get_graph_nodes / connect_pins / set_pin_default_value. It picks the right shape by itself: a member WITH a return value gets a real FUNCTION graph in ImplementedInterfaces[].Graphs -- where add_blueprint_function refuses it ("Function already exists") and an event node would be a useless return-less stub -- while an event-shape member (no return value) gets a genuine event OVERRIDE node in the event graph, with its node_id returned. Idempotent in both branches. override_interface_member is the same logic under a friendlier name/response.

Returns: { blueprint_name, function_name, graph_name, kind: "function"|"event", already_existed: bool, node_id? } -- kind "function": graph_name is an editable function graph, ready to wire with get_graph_nodes / connect_pins; kind "event": the member returns nothing, so an event OVERRIDE node was created (or reused) in the event graph that graph_name names, and node_id is that node, to wire with connect_pins.

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.
function_nameYesName of the interface or overridable function (e.g. "CanInteract", "GetInteractText").
blueprint_nameNoBlueprint asset name or path (must already implement the interface / inherit the virtual; implement_interface first).
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 declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true; the description reinforces idempotency ('Idempotent in both branches') and adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, including the auto shape-selection and the returned node_id/graph_name. It does not restate the destructive/PIE-write implications itself (those live in the force param description), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core action and routing are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return shape is given as a compact typed object. It is dense and emphatic (caps, parenthetical asides) but each sentence carries real information, so it stays within bounds.

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 fully documents the return object ({ blueprint_name, function_name, graph_name, kind, already_existed, node_id? }) and clarifies what graph_name and node_id are for in each branch. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents function_name, blueprint_name, blueprint_path, and the detailed force/PIE semantics; the description adds little param-level meaning beyond the return structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create or resolve the graph that IMPLEMENTS an interface member') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings, noting that add_blueprint_function refuses the function shape and that override_interface_member is the same logic under a different name. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from nearby tools.

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?

It spells out when each branch applies (a member WITH a return value gets a function graph; an event-shape member gets an event OVERRIDE node), names the sibling it supersedes, and gives a prerequisite ('must already implement the interface / inherit the virtual; implement_interface first'). Routing and conditions are explicit rather than inferred.

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