Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

rename_data_table_row

Destructive

Rename a DataTable row key while copying its value byte-exact, then save and verify the swap. Use overwrite to replace an existing key; references to the old name are not updated.

Instructions

Rename a DataTable row key, copying its value byte-exact (safer than delete plus re-add, which can drop GameplayTags), then save and verify the swap (new_exists, old_removed). Refuses a case-only rename, and an existing new_name unless overwrite=true. Row handles that reference the old name are not updated.

Returns: { table_path, old_name, new_name, row_struct, success, overwrote_existing, new_exists, old_removed, saved, row_count }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_nameYesNew row key (error if it already exists unless overwrite=true)
old_nameYesExisting row key to rename (error if it does not exist)
overwriteNoWhen true, allow new_name to replace an existing row; when false (default) a pre-existing new_name is an error
data_tableNoAlias of table_path (the DataTable asset path, e.g. "/Game/Data/DT_Items"); table_path wins when both are given
table_pathNoFull asset path of the DataTable (data_table also accepted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / data_table / description
      Added value: +"Alias of table_path (the DataTable asset path, e.g. \"/Game/Data/DT_Items\"); table_path wins when both are given"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "table_path",
-  "old_name",
-  "new_name"
-]New value: +[
+  "old_name",
+  "new_name"
+]
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already declaring destructive=true and idempotent=false, the description still adds substantial context: byte-exact value copying, the save-and-verify step (new_exists, old_removed), the GameplayTags-loss risk of the delete/re-add alternative, and the important caveat that row handles referencing the old name are not updated. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 purpose, then caveats, then a Returns line, so an agent gets the essentials first. The single dense paragraph is efficient though slightly packed; every sentence (refusals, handle caveat, return fields) carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return object fields (table_path, old_name, new_name, row_struct, success, overwrote_existing, new_exists, old_removed, saved, row_count). Combined with the refusal conditions and side-effect caveat, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 five parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: the case-only rename refusal (a constraint on new_name not stated in the schema) and the overwrite refusal condition. The old_name/new_name semantics largely restate the schema.

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 (rename a DataTable row key) and distinguishes itself from siblings like rename_curve_table_row, set_data_table_row, and add_data_table_row. An agent can tell immediately what operation this performs and on which asset type.

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?

Explains the alternative approach it replaces ('delete plus re-add, which can drop GameplayTags') and enumerates the refusal conditions (case-only rename, existing new_name unless overwrite=true), giving clear when-to-use and when-it-fails context. It does not route to a specific named sibling tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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