Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

reparent_widget

Destructive

Move a widget to a new parent panel, optionally at a specific child index and with slot properties applied. Validates the new parent is a panel and refuses cycles.

Instructions

Move a widget to a new parent panel (optionally at a specific child index), via FWidgetBlueprintOperationUtils::MoveWidget -- the same primitive backing the Designer's drag-and-drop reparent. Validates the new parent is a panel widget and refuses to create a cycle. Optional slot_properties are applied to the widget's NEW slot afterward via the shared reflection setter (e.g. {"Row":1,"Column":2} for a GridSlot). THIS IS ALSO HOW YOU FILL A NAMED SLOT: a UNamedSlot is a UContentWidget (hence a panel), so add one with add_widget_extended widget_type="NamedSlot" and reparent the content into it -- there is no separate SetContentForSlot tool and none is needed (it answers reparented:true, new_slot_class:PanelSlot).

Returns: { widget_bp_path: string, widget_name: string, old_parent_name: string, new_parent_name: string, new_slot_class: string, resolved_child_index: int, reparented: bool, slot_properties_applied: int, slot_property_errors?: [string], 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.
widget_nameYesname of the widget to move
target_indexNoOptional int child index to insert at (default: append at the end)
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
new_parent_nameYesname of the panel widget to become the new parent
slot_propertiesNoOptional object of {PropertyName: value} applied to the resulting slot via reflection (best-effort; per-field errors are reported, not fatal)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and readOnly=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: panel-type validation, cycle refusal, and best-effort slot_properties with per-field errors. The PIE restriction and its risk are documented, though in the schema's force param rather than the description.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the NamedSlot guidance and then the return shape. It is dense and mostly earns its length, though the return-type enumeration is slightly long given it could be shorter. No redundant filler sentences.

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 fully enumerates the return fields (reparented, new_slot_class, slot_property_errors, saved, save_error). Combined with validation, error handling, and the PIE caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly, including force, target_index, and slot_properties. The description only adds a GridSlot example ({'Row':1,'Column':2}) beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Move a widget to a new parent panel, optionally at a specific child index') and names the underlying primitive. It also disambiguates from siblings by clarifying that reparenting is how a NamedSlot gets filled and that no separate SetContentForSlot tool exists.

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 clear usage context and a critical 'when to use this instead' scenario for filling named slots, plus the cycle/panel validation conditions. It stops short of explicitly routing from siblings like reorder_widget_child or set_slot_properties, so an agent must infer the boundary there.

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