Skip to main content
Glama

stop_widget_animation

Destructive

Halts a Widget Blueprint animation in the active Unreal PIE viewport and reports whether playback actually ended, or flags that a live PIE instance is required.

Instructions

Stop a widget animation. REAL stop (UUserWidget::StopAnimation) when a live PIE instance of this WidgetBP is found in the viewport's active UUserWidgets: stopped is true when the animation was playing before the call and is not after it; one that was not playing (stopped or paused) succeeds with stopped:false and a note, and one still playing after the call is an error. Falls back to an honest headless gate (stopped:false, headless:true, requires_pie:true) otherwise.

Returns: { widget_bp_path: string, animation_name: string, animation_exists: bool, stopped: bool, headless: bool, requires_pie: bool, note: string, saved: bool, live_widget_name?: string, live_animation_name?: string, world: string, world_name: string|null, world_package: string|null, world_type: string|null, net_mode: string|null, pie_instance: number }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
worldNoOptional world selector: absent/'pie' (default: PlayWorld, else the first PIE context) | 'server' (the PIE world with authority) | 'client' | 'pie:N' | 'game' (alias of 'pie'). In a 2-player PIE session EVERY client has its OWN widgets, so the default may well read the other player's HUD.
animation_nameYesobject name OR display label of the animation to stop
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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true), the description discloses the full outcome taxonomy: stopped=true when playing before and not after; stopped=false plus a note when it was already stopped/paused; an error when still playing after the call; and the headless gate (stopped:false, headless:true, requires_pie:true). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure that an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 short sentence, followed by the outcome semantics. The long enumerated Returns block is verbose but justified because there is no output schema, so it is earning its place rather than repeating structured data.

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 a tool with no output schema and nontrivial PIE/world behavior, the description covers the return fields and all stop outcomes, leaving the agent well equipped. The only gap is that world-selection nuances live entirely in the schema rather than the description, which is acceptable given 100% schema 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 the four parameters (including the world selector and the widget_bp_path/blueprint_name aliasing) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only lightly clarifies that widget_bp_path refers to the WidgetBP, adding little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a clear specific verb+resource ('Stop a widget animation') and the body distinguishes a genuine runtime stop (UUserWidget::StopAnimation) from a headless fallback. It reads distinctly from siblings like play_widget_animation and remove_widget_animation, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

The description states the precondition for the real path (a live PIE instance of this WidgetBP must be found in the viewport's active UUserWidgets) and what happens otherwise, giving the agent clear context about when the tool actually works. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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