Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_unused_variables

Destructive

Delete every unused variable from a Blueprint in one operation and report which variables were removed.

Instructions

Delete EVERY variable the engine considers unused from a Blueprint in one shot (GatherUnusedVariables + RemoveUnusedVariables) and report which ones went. Destructive and non-selective -- "unused" means no graph node reads or writes it, so a variable only touched from C++, a DataTable, a save game or a runtime name lookup counts as unused and is deleted. Preview it by comparing get_blueprint_variables before/after, or delete a specific one with delete_bp_variable.

Returns: { blueprint_name: string, removed_count: int, removed_variables?: [string] } -- removed_variables is the list gathered BEFORE the removal and removed_count what the engine reported removing; when they disagree, trust neither and re-read get_blueprint_variables.

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`.

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 destructiveHint annotation, it discloses the crucial semantic: 'unused' means no graph node reads or writes it, so variables referenced only from C++, DataTables, save games, or runtime name lookups are silently deleted. That is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs, and the return-value caveat ('when they disagree, trust neither') adds further honesty.

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-loaded with the core action and scope, then the destructive caveat and alternatives in order of importance. The Returns paragraph is long but pays for itself since no output schema exists; the parenthetical engine-function names are the one mildly expendable element.

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 return shape and a caveat about inconsistent counts, and with annotations only covering the safety profile it supplies the destructive semantics, the alternative workflows, and the risk definition. Nothing material to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 itself carries unusually rich descriptions (including the full PIE-refusal rationale for force). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying blueprint_name via the preview workflow, which matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Delete EVERY variable the engine considers unused from a Blueprint in one shot'), gives the underlying engine operations, and immediately distinguishes itself from the single-target sibling by naming delete_bp_variable. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it is not.

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 alternatives and the conditions that select them: preview by comparing get_blueprint_variables before/after, or delete a specific variable with delete_bp_variable. It also states the destructive-and-non-selective condition, so the agent knows when not to reach for this 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