Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_widget_property_binding

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a UMG property binding in a Widget Blueprint, resetting the Designer's Bind dropdown to none so the property uses its authored fixed value again.

Instructions

Remove a UMG property binding (the Designer's "Bind" dropdown set back to none), so the property goes back to holding its authored fixed value. Inverse of add_widget_property_binding and idempotent: a property that was not bound is an honest success with removed:false, never an error.

Returns: { widget_bp_path: string, widget_name: string, property_name: string, removed: bool, already_absent: bool, remaining_binding_count: int, saved: bool, save_error: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saveNoCompile + save the Widget Blueprint when done (default true).
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.
widget_nameYesName of the widget whose binding to drop
property_nameYesThe bound property, e.g. "Text". Matching is on widget_name + property_name, which is exactly how UMG identifies a binding (one binding per property, max).
blueprint_nameNoAlias of `widget_bp_path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `widget_bp_path`.
widget_bp_pathNo/Game path of the Widget Blueprint asset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description concretizes both: what 'removed' does to state (property reverts to its authored fixed value) and how idempotency behaves on a non-bound property. It also discloses the full return payload, adding value beyond the annotations, though the PIE-refusal behavior lives in a param description rather than here.

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 verb and the idempotency caveat in two tight sentences, then lists the return shape. The return enumeration is slightly long but justified given there is no output schema.

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 6-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the idempotency guarantee, and the annotations carry the safety profile. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the PIE-refusal condition is delegated to the schema rather than restated here.

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 every parameter (including save, force, widget_name, property_name, and the blueprint_name/widget_bp_path alias) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 (remove) and resource (UMG property binding), and clarifies exactly what that means by equating it to setting the Designer's "Bind" dropdown back to none. It explicitly names its inverse sibling add_widget_property_binding, so an agent can distinguish it from related tools without opening a schema.

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?

Names the inverse alternative (add_widget_property_binding) and defines the idempotency contract (unbound property yields removed:false, never an error), which tells the agent when a call is safe. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the semantics are clear.

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