Skip to main content
Glama

set_static_mesh_properties

DestructiveIdempotent

Assign a static mesh and/or slot-0 material to a Blueprint mesh component template in one call, without compiling or saving.

Instructions

Assign a static mesh asset and/or a slot-0 material to a mesh component TEMPLATE of a Blueprint (an OWN SCS node, not a placed actor), in one call. Does NOT compile and does NOT save. Use apply_material_to_blueprint when only a material is changing or the slot is not 0, and get_blueprint_material_info to read the resulting slots back.

Returns: { component: string } -- name only, no verification: read the result with get_blueprint_material_info / get_blueprint_component_property.

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.
materialNoOptional asset path of the UMaterialInterface for slot 0
static_meshNoOptional asset path of the UStaticMesh to assign
blueprint_nameNoName of the blueprint
blueprint_pathNoAlias of `blueprint_name` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `blueprint_name`.
component_nameYesName of an OWN SCS mesh component

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds important context the annotations cannot: no compile, no save, and the return is name-only with no verification, plus the tool to read it back. It does not restate the PIE refusal rule (that lives in the force parameter description), which is acceptable since the schema covers it.

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 the action and scope, then routing guidance, then the return contract. Efficient, though 'read the result with get_blueprint_material_info / get_blueprint_component_property' slightly duplicates the earlier alternative-tool mention.

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 supplies the return shape itself, so the agent knows it gets only a component name and must verify separately. Combined with the routing guidance and the PIE caveat in the force parameter, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 explains blueprint_name, blueprint_path alias, component_name, static_mesh, material and force. The description adds only 'slot-0' framing and 'and/or' semantics for mesh vs material, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource plus scope qualifiers: assigns a static mesh and/or slot-0 material to a mesh component TEMPLATE in a Blueprint, explicitly an OWN SCS node rather than a placed actor. This distinguishes it from the many other mesh/material setters in the sibling list without the agent opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the alternative (apply_material_to_blueprint) and the condition selecting it ('when only a material is changing or the slot is not 0'), plus the read-back tool. It also states the negative boundary up front: does NOT compile and does NOT save.

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