Skip to main content
Glama

list_widget_property_bindings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate UMG property bindings on a Widget Blueprint and report each binding's status, including compiler reasons for broken bindings after a function rename.

Instructions

List the UMG PROPERTY BINDINGS of a Widget Blueprint -- the "Bind" dropdown next to a property in the Designer's details panel, which makes that property recompute every frame by calling a function instead of holding a fixed value. These live in UWidgetBlueprint::Bindings, NOT in the widget tree and NOT in the event graph, so no other reader sees them; and UWidgetBlueprint::Bindings is NOT exposed to Python either (get_editor_property("bindings") throws), so this is the only headless way to read them. Each entry is re-validated live with the engine's own FDelegateEditorBinding::IsBindingValid, so a binding whose function was renamed or made non-pure comes back valid:false WITH the compiler's reason -- that is the difference between "there is a binding" and "there is a binding that works".

Returns: { widget_bp_path: string, binding_count: int, bindings: [{ widget_name, property_name, function_name, kind, member_guid, source_property, valid, validation_messages: [string] }], bindable_properties?: {widget_name: [string]} }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blueprint_nameNoAlias of `widget_bp_path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `widget_bp_path`.
widget_bp_pathNo/Game path of the Widget Blueprint asset
include_bindable_propertiesNoAlso list, per widget in the tree, which properties ACCEPT a binding at all (default false). A property is bindable only if its widget declares a companion delegate named "<Property>Delegate" -- this saves guessing.

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 read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that each binding is re-validated live and that invalid bindings include compiler reasons. This distinguishes 'a binding exists' from 'a binding that works', which is important behavioral context.

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 definition is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and is well structured. It is somewhat long and dense because of the domain-specific caveats and return-shape detail, but most sentences earn their place; it stops short of being overstuffed.

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 niche read-only inspection tool with no separate output schema, the description supplies the necessary output shape, validation behavior, and storage-location context. Combined with the 100% schema coverage and annotations, an agent has enough information to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds output-shape and validation context, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for blueprint_name, widget_bp_path, or include_bindable_properties, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb and resource: 'List the UMG PROPERTY BINDINGS of a Widget Blueprint'. It also explains exactly what those bindings are and distinguishes them from widget-tree and event-graph data, so an agent can identify this tool's scope immediately.

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 explicitly states when this tool is necessary: property bindings are not visible to other readers and are not exposed to Python, making this 'the only headless way to read them'. It also clarifies when to request bindable_properties, so usage is well bounded.

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