Skip to main content
Glama

set_widget_property

DestructiveIdempotent

Set one or many reflected properties on a Widget Blueprint widget, including nested style fields via dotted paths, and report which fields applied or were ignored.

Instructions

Set ONE or MANY reflected properties on a widget of a Widget Blueprint, addressing NESTED STYLE FIELDS by dotted path ("WidgetStyle.Normal.TintColor", "WidgetStyle.Hovered.OutlineSettings.CornerRadii") and reporting FIELD BY FIELD what actually landed. Two calling shapes over one write path: property_name+value writes a single path; properties writes a whole map with ONE Modify + ONE compile + ONE save (a FButtonStyle is ~30 leaf fields -- one call, not 30 recompiles). WARNING: The oracle is applied[]/ignored[]/errors[], NOT success: a JSON key that matches no reflected field lands in ignored[] and all_applied goes false instead of the silent no-op the engine's converter reports as success. Read the result back with get_widget_blueprint_tree(property_paths=[...]).

Returns: { widget_bp_path: string, widget_name: string, widget_class: string, requested_paths: [string], applied: [string], ignored: [string], errors: [{path, error}], failed_paths: [string], applied_count: int, all_applied: bool, current_values: object, saved: bool, save_error: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saveNoCompile + save the Widget Blueprint when done (default true). Pass false to chain several calls and save once at the end -- the asset stays dirty in memory until something saves it.
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.
valueNoNew value for property_name: string, number, bool, JSON object (struct, applied field by field) or JSON array. Colors accept {"R":1,"G":0,"B":0,"A":1}, [r,g,b,a] or "#RRGGBBAA"; FMargin accepts a scalar, [h,v] or [l,t,r,b]; an FSlateBrush accepts a texture/material path string; enums accept the short name ("Box").
propertiesNoBatch form: {"<dotted path>": <value>, ...}. Every path is written against the SAME widget under one Modify/compile/save. Combinable with property_name+value (both end up in the same map).
widget_nameYesname of the widget in the tree (get_widget_blueprint_tree lists them)
property_nameNoSingle reflected property name ("Text") OR a dotted path into nested structs ("WidgetStyle.Normal.TintColor"); array indices are supported ("Items[0].Label"). Requires `value`. Omit when using `properties`.
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

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by defining the true success oracle ('applied[]/ignored[]/errors[], NOT success'), explaining that an unmatched key silently lands in ignored[] with all_applied false, and disclosing the single-Modify/compile/save batch path. It does not say what pre-existing values are overwritten (relevant given destructiveHint=true) or address the idempotentHint, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 core behavior, then labels the WARNING and Returns blocks so they can be scanned; every sentence carries information. The inline Returns key dump is long, but since no output schema exists it is doing necessary work rather than padding.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the PIE prerequisite (in the force/save params), the failure semantics, the batch-vs-single shape, and the full return contract. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: dotted paths into nested structs, array indices, and the fact that property_name+value and properties merge into the same map under one compile/save. That cost/composition behavior is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 ('Set ONE or MANY reflected properties on a widget of a Widget Blueprint') and pins the scope with concrete dotted-path examples ('WidgetStyle.Normal.TintColor'). It also makes the output contract explicit ('reporting FIELD BY FIELD what actually landed'), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling setters like set_widget_slot_properties or set_widget_visibility.

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 a clear when-to-use-batch rule ('a FButtonStyle is ~30 leaf fields -- one call, not 30 recompiles') and names the read-back tool with the exact parameter (get_widget_blueprint_tree(property_paths=[...])). It does not, however, contrast itself against adjacent widget setters, so the routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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