Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_blueprint_component_node

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove one or more Blueprint SCS component nodes in a single batch compile, optionally promoting children. Idempotent, so re-runs safely report already_removed instead of erroring.

Instructions

Remove one or MORE SCS component nodes in a single batch (ONE compile for the whole lot), optionally promoting their children, and report the double census (flat AllNodes vs a walk of RootNodes) so descendants that go missing or become unreachable are NAMED instead of silently dropped. Same engine work as remove_component_from_blueprint; the difference is the contract for a component that is not there: this one is IDEMPOTENT (already_removed:true, no error), while remove_component_from_blueprint treats "nothing matched" as a caller error. Prefer this one in scripts that may re-run.

Returns: { success, error?, data: { blueprint_name, component_name, promote_children, removed, already_removed, requested[], removed_components[], also_removed[], unexpected_losses[], not_found[], still_present[], node_count_before, node_count_after, reachable_before, reachable_after, orphans_before[], orphans_after[], root_nodes_before[], root_nodes_after[], root_nodes_changed, compiled, compile_count, verification } }

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.
blueprint_nameNoName of the blueprint
blueprint_pathNoAlias of `blueprint_name` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `blueprint_name`.
component_nameNoName of the SCS component node to remove (single form)
component_namesNoOptional array of SCS component node names removed in ONE batch with a SINGLE compile. Chaining single-node calls is what causes collateral deletions; prefer this for lots. Merged with component_name when both are given.
promote_childrenNoOptional bool (default true); true keeps descendants (RemoveNodeAndPromoteChildren), false orphans/deletes them (RemoveNode)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: single-compile batching to avoid collateral deletions, the double census verification that names lost/unreachable descendants, and the promote-children consequences. idempotentHint/destructiveHint already cover part of the safety profile, so the added value is strong but partially overlaps the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence front-loads the core behavior well, but the description is dense and ends with a long inline return-shape dump that bloats the entry. Every element is informative yet the packaging is heavier than necessary.

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 compensates by embedding the full return shape, and it also covers the PIE refusal, idempotency contract, and child-promotion consequences. An agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the force/PIE behavior. The description reinforces the batching and promote-children semantics but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Remove one or MORE SCS component nodes in a single batch') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_component_from_blueprint by contract (idempotent vs caller error). An agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Prefer this one in scripts that may re-run') and names the alternative plus the exact condition that separates them (not-found handling). No inference required.

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