Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_gameplay_cue_notify_looping_properties

DestructiveIdempotent

Configure the GameplayCue tag, actor lifetime, instancing, and override settings on a GameplayCueNotify_Looping Blueprint CDO to control cue behavior.

Instructions

Set GameplayCueTag + Actor lifetime/instancing/override props on an AGameplayCueNotify_Looping Blueprint CDO

Returns: { cue_notify_path: string, properties_set: int, gameplay_cue_tag: string, gameplay_cue_name: string, auto_destroy_on_remove: bool, auto_destroy_delay: number, auto_attach_to_owner: bool, is_override: bool, unique_instance_per_instigator: bool, unique_instance_per_source_object: bool, allow_multiple_on_active_events: bool, allow_multiple_while_active_events: bool, num_preallocated_instances: int, note: string, set: bool }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
is_overrideNoOptional bool: this cue overrides parent-tag cues instead of running in addition
cue_notify_pathYesFull asset path of the GameplayCueNotify_Looping Blueprint
gameplay_cue_tagNoOptional registered GameplayCue tag (sets GameplayCueTag + mirrors GameplayCueName); unregistered -> clean error
auto_destroy_delayNoOptional float: seconds to stay alive before auto-destroy (needs auto_destroy_on_remove)
auto_attach_to_ownerNoOptional bool: attach the cue actor to the target while active
auto_destroy_on_removeNoOptional bool: auto recycle/destroy when OnRemove fires
num_preallocated_instancesNoOptional int: how many instances of the cue to preallocate
unique_instance_per_instigatorNoOptional bool: a new instance per instigator
allow_multiple_on_active_eventsNoOptional bool: re-trigger On Burst if already triggered
unique_instance_per_source_objectNoOptional bool: a new instance per source object
allow_multiple_while_active_eventsNoOptional bool: re-trigger On Become Relevant if already triggered

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 disclose the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=true), so the mutation nature is covered structurally. The description adds the return payload, which is real value given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about what is destroyed, required permissions, or side effects on the CDO beyond what annotations imply.

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 in a single dense line, and the return-shape block is justified because there is no output schema. The enumerated return list is long but earns its place by documenting the response.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers both the operation and the return contract inline, and the schema fills in per-parameter detail. The remaining gap is the absence of usage/prerequisite context, which is minor relative to the structured coverage.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented with per-field semantics (e.g., the registered-tag requirement and auto_destroy_delay dependency). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating the returned fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Set) plus the exact resource/property family on a named class, AGameplayCueNotify_Looping Blueprint CDO. The Looping qualifier implicitly separates it from the burst/static/actor sibling setters without needing the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this versus set_gameplay_cue_notify_burst_properties, set_gameplay_cue_notify_static_properties, or set_gameplay_cue_notify_actor_properties, nor any prerequisites beyond what the schema states. The agent must infer the context from the name alone.

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