Skip to main content
Glama

remove_anim_state

Destructive

Remove a state node and its bound animation subgraph from an Unreal Engine AnimBlueprint state machine, including cascaded transitions.

Instructions

Remove a state node (and its bound animation subgraph) from a state machine.

Returns: { anim_blueprint_path: string, machine_name: string, state_name: string, removed: bool, already_absent: bool, state_count: int, transition_count: int, cascaded_transitions_removed: int, saved: bool, save_error?: 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.
state_nameYesName of the state to remove
machine_nameYesName of the state machine that owns the state
blueprint_nameNoAlias of `anim_blueprint_path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `anim_blueprint_path`.
anim_blueprint_pathNoPath to the UAnimBlueprint asset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: removal cascades to the bound animation subgraph and transitions (cascaded_transitions_removed), and the return contract distinguishes removed vs already_absent. It does not repeat the schema's PIE-refusal/save behavior in the body text, but the schema carries that.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, immediately followed by the return contract. The returns block is lengthy but earns its place since there is no output schema. No filler prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape (removed, already_absent, counts, saved, save_error) and the cascade semantics, and the schema supplies the PIE hazard. Only the when-to-use routing is missing, and that is scored under usage guidelines.

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%, including a thorough write-up of the force/PIE-refusal semantics, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no mention of force, the blueprint_name alias, or path requirements). Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a state node ... from a state machine') plus an important scope detail: the bound animation subgraph goes with it. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the add_anim_state/add_anim_transition siblings, but never names an alternative the way the top-tier examples do.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of sibling tools such as remove_anim_transition, remove_transition, or list_states. The agent is left to infer that this is the counterpart to add_anim_state purely from the name.

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