Skip to main content
Glama

remove_rig_element

Destructive

Remove a named Bone, Null, Control, Curve, Socket, or Connector from a Control Rig Blueprint hierarchy, then compile and save it; errors if the type or element is missing.

Instructions

Remove one element (by name and type) from a Control Rig Blueprint hierarchy with RemoveElement, then compile and save the blueprint. Errors on an unknown type or a missing element. Returns the per-type counts afterwards; refused while PIE runs unless force is set.

Returns: { asset_path: string, element_key: string, element_type: string, removed: bool, bone_count: int, null_count: int, control_count: int, curve_count: int, other_count: int, total: 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.
element_nameYesName of the element to remove
element_typeYesElement type, any case: "Bone", "Null" (or "Space"), "Control", "Curve", "Socket" or "Connector"
control_rig_pathYesControl Rig Blueprint asset path, e.g. "/Game/Rigs/CR_Hero"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / control_rig_path / description
      Previous value: -"Path to the UControlRigBlueprint asset"New value: +"Control Rig Blueprint asset path, e.g. \"/Game/Rigs/CR_Hero\""
    • changedInput schema / properties / element_type / description
      Previous value: -"Element type (\"Bone\"/\"Null\"/\"Control\"/\"Curve\"/\"Socket\"/\"Connector\")"New value: +"Element type, any case: \"Bone\", \"Null\" (or \"Space\"), \"Control\", \"Curve\", \"Socket\" or \"Connector\""
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing that the tool compiles and saves the blueprint after removal, that it errors on unknown types or missing elements, and that it is refused during PIE unless force is set. This is exactly the side-effect and precondition context an agent needs for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loads the core action and constraints in one dense sentence, then a Returns block. Efficient overall, though the inline return-shape listing is a little heavy where a schema would normally live.

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 supplies the full return shape and documents errors, PIE refusal, and the compile/save side effect. Nothing material is missing for calling and interpreting this mutation tool.

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% and the schema's own descriptions (especially the detailed force parameter) carry the semantics. The description adds only 'by name and type', which the schema already makes explicit, so the 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 one element ... from a Control Rig Blueprint hierarchy') and names the underlying RemoveElement operation. It is clearly the generic rig-element remover, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like remove_bone or remove_rigvm_node.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete preconditions: errors on an unknown type or missing element, and it is refused during PIE unless force is set. That is a clear 'when not to use' constraint, but it offers no guidance on choosing this over a sibling removal tool.

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