Unreal-MCP-Ghost

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bp_remove_node

Remove a Blueprint node by its stable GUID, disconnecting all pins to leave the graph in a valid state. Verify node IDs with bp_get_graph_summary first.

Instructions

Remove a node from a Blueprint graph by its node_id (GUID).

Breaks all pin connections on the node before removing it so the graph is left in a valid (though possibly uncompiled) state. The operation is NOT wrapped in a transaction on the Python side — the C++ bridge performs its own undo-mark.

Use bp_get_graph_summary first to confirm the node_id you want to delete, then run bp_compile after removal to verify the graph is clean.

Args: blueprint_name: Blueprint asset name (e.g. 'BP_MyActor') node_id: Stable GUID of the node to delete (from bp_get_graph_summary or bp_add_node outputs) graph_name: Graph containing the node. Default 'EventGraph'.

Returns: JSON StructuredResult. outputs.deleted_node_id — GUID of the removed node outputs.deleted_node_name — Object name of the removed node outputs.next_steps — Suggested follow-up actions

KB: see knowledge_base/01_BLUEPRINT_FUNDAMENTALS.md#overview Example: bp_remove_node(blueprint_name="/Game/MCP_Test/BP_Example", node_id="Example")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`node_id`	Yes
`graph_name`	No	EventGraph
`blueprint_name`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden: it discloses side effects (breaks all pin connections), postcondition (valid though possibly uncompiled), transaction behavior (not wrapped on Python side, C++ bridge does undo-mark), and expected next steps. This is exceptional detail for a mutating operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured into behavior, workflow, args, returns, KB reference, and example sections. It is information-dense yet every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

The description is self-sufficient for invoking this tool correctly: it specifies all inputs, output fields, side effects, and verification workflow. The KB pointer and example add extra context beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: blueprint_name format, node_id provenance as a stable GUID from bp_get_graph_summary or bp_add_node outputs, and graph_name defaulting to EventGraph. Examples further ground the expected values.

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?

States the exact operation (remove a node from a Blueprint graph), the identifying input (node_id GUID), and the resulting state (pin connections broken). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling delete_blueprint_node.

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?

Provides a clear workflow: use bp_get_graph_summary first to confirm node_id, then run bp_compile after removal to verify the graph is clean. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria or alternative-tool comparison, but the contextual guidance is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server