Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_anim_transition

Destructive

Delete a source-to-target transition and its rule subgraph from a Unreal Engine animation Blueprint state machine. Specify blueprint, machine, source, and target states.

Instructions

Remove a source->target transition (and its rule subgraph) from a state machine.

Returns: { anim_blueprint_path: string, machine_name: string, source_state: string, target_state: string, removed: bool, already_absent: bool, transition_count: 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.
to_stateNoAlias of `target_state` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `target_state`.
from_stateNoAlias of `source_state` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `source_state`.
machine_nameYesName of the state machine that owns the transition
source_stateNoName of the source state (transition origin)
target_stateNoName of the target state (transition destination)
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 readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by revealing cascade behavior (the rule subgraph is removed too) and, via the returns block with saved/save_error/already_absent, that this writes to disk and treats a missing transition as a non-error.

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?

Two compact blocks: a front-loaded action sentence followed by a returns declaration. Since no output schema exists, the returns line is load-bearing information rather than redundancy, and there is no filler.

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 and eight parameters, the description covers the action, the cascade side effect, and the full return contract, while the richly documented schema carries PIE/force behavior. Missing usage routing to remove_transition keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect parameter meaning by echoing machine_name, source_state, target_state, and anim_blueprint_path in the return shape; it does not explain the alias parameters or the force semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 source->target transition ... from a state machine') and adds scope detail by noting the rule subgraph goes with it. It stops short of naming the close sibling remove_transition (state-tree counterpart), so an agent must infer the anim-vs-state-tree distinction from the name prefix rather than the description.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the alternative remove_transition. The only conditional behavior (PIE refusal, force override) lives in the schema's force parameter, not in the description.

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