Skip to main content
Glama

set_anim_transition_rule_from_bool

DestructiveIdempotent

Bind a bool variable's getter as the rule for an AnimBP state machine transition, specifying source and target states by name.

Instructions

Wire a bool variable's getter as the rule of a transition.

Returns: { anim_blueprint_path, machine_name, source_state, target_state, variable_name, variable_kind, rule_set, sink_present, contributor_count, contributor_node_class, saved, save_error? }

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.
to_stateNoAlias of `target_state` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `target_state`.
from_stateNoAlias of `source_state` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `source_state`.
machine_nameYesName of the state machine that owns the transition
source_stateNoName of the source state (transition origin)
target_stateNoName of the target state (transition destination)
variable_nameYesName of an existing bool variable on the AnimBP (or its parent C++ class)
blueprint_nameNoAlias of `anim_blueprint_path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `anim_blueprint_path`.
anim_blueprint_pathNoAsset path of the UAnimBlueprint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partially carried by structured data. The description adds the return-field shape, but it never explains what the destructive flag actually means here (that it overwrites/replaces an existing transition rule) or what happens when the bool variable is missing. Adds some value, not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two compact lines, purpose front-loaded ahead of the return shape. The 12-field Returns list is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return object (rule_set, sink_present, saved, save_error?), which the agent otherwise could not know. Safety is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance relative to the three sibling rule-setting tools, but for a wiring operation on a known transition this is close to complete.

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%, including the notable PIE-refusal semantics on `force` and the alias mappings, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'bool variable's getter' hints at the `variable_name` semantics but adds no format or constraint information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Wire) and resource (a bool variable's getter as a transition rule) on an AnimBP state machine. It's clearly distinct from the automatic/from_comparison rule-setting siblings by name, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must the transition already exist? must the machine be found by name?), and no mention of the sibling tools set_anim_transition_rule_automatic / set_anim_transition_rule_from_comparison / clear_anim_transition_rule that a caller should choose between. The agent is left to infer that 'from_bool' is the choice when the driver is a bool variable.

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