Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_property_access_path

DestructiveIdempotent

Rewrite a Blueprint node's binding path and rebuild it so the leaf property re-resolves, returning the re-read path as proof before you recompile.

Instructions

Rewrite a UK2Node_PropertyAccess node's binding Path and reconstruct the node so the leaf property re-resolves and the Value pin re-types, then return the path READ BACK -- so resolved:true is real evidence the new binding points at something. It does NOT recompile: follow with compile_blueprint + get_compile_errors. reconstructed:false means the PropertyAccessEditor feature was unavailable: the path WAS written but text_path/resolved_pin stay stale until the graph reopens.

Returns: { node_id, graph_name, reconstructed, path:[string], text_path, resolved, resolved_pin, note? } -- path/text_path/resolved are re-read AFTER the reconstruct, so they are the oracle rather than an echo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoThe new path: either an array of segment strings (["InAnimInstance","Foo"]) OR a dotted string ("InAnimInstance.Foo"). An empty result is an error, never a cleared binding.
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.
node_idYesNodeGuid of the property-access node; any other node class is refused by name.
asset_pathNoAlias of `path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `path`.
graph_nameNoTarget graph name; defaults to the Blueprint's event graph when omitted.
blueprint_nameNoBlueprint name or path (usually an Animation Blueprint).
blueprint_pathNoAlias of `blueprint_name` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `blueprint_name`.

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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the read-back oracle semantics, the reconstructed:false feature-unavailable case where the path is written but results stay stale, and the no-recompile caveat.

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-loaded with the core action and effect, then the recompile caveat, then the failure mode, then the return shape. Dense but each clause earns its place; the return-shape sentence is slightly run-on but purposeful.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape inline ({ node_id, graph_name, reconstructed, path, text_path, resolved, resolved_pin, note? }) and explains the oracle vs echo distinction. For a destructive mutation tool it covers action, failure mode, and next step adequately.

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 including aliases and the PIE force behavior. The description adds little parameter-level detail, 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 and resource ('Rewrite a UK2Node_PropertyAccess node's binding Path and reconstruct the node') and describes the downstream effect (leaf re-resolves, Value pin re-types). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_property_access_path read counterpart.

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?

Explicitly states this does NOT recompile and names the follow-up tools (compile_blueprint + get_compile_errors), which is actionable workflow guidance. It does not explicitly contrast when to choose this versus a direct pin-binding sibling, but the context is 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