Skip to main content
Glama

control_rig_add_constraint

Adds parent or space constraints to Control Rig elements, defining hierarchy relationships for precise rig control. Specify child and parent elements, constraint type, weight, and transform handling to establish the desired linkage.

Instructions

Add a Control Rig hierarchy parent or available-space constraint.

Args: rig_path: Full Control Rig asset path child_name: Child element name parent_name: Parent/space element name child_type: CONTROL, BONE, or NULL parent_type: BONE, NULL, or CONTROL constraint_type: "parent" for weighted hierarchy parent, "space" for available space weight: Parent weight for parent constraints maintain_global_transform: Preserve child global transform when adding parent display_label: Optional label shown for a space/parent relationship save: Save the asset after editing

KB: see knowledge_base/05_ANIMATION_SYSTEM.md#overview Example: control_rig_add_constraint(rig_path="/Game/MCP_Test/Example", child_name="ExampleName", parent_name="ExampleName")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saveNo
weightNo
rig_pathYes
child_nameYes
child_typeNoCONTROL
parent_nameYes
parent_typeNoBONE
display_labelNo
constraint_typeNoparent
maintain_global_transformNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool edits and can save the asset, distinguishes 'parent' vs 'space' constraint behavior, and explains that maintain_global_transform preserves the child's transform. It does not mention reversibility or failure modes, but it is substantially transparent for a mutation tool.

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 well structured with a clear one-line purpose, a compact Args list, a KB reference, and a concrete example. Every section serves a purpose, and the parameter documentation earns its length given the 0% schema coverage.

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?

The description covers all parameters, includes an example, and points to a KB section for deeper context. It is nearly complete for a 10-parameter tool, though it could additionally specify valid child_type/parent_type combinations or prerequisites for the rig elements it references.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining all 10 parameters with meaningful semantics: rig_path is a full asset path, constraint_type defines parent vs space behavior, weight applies to parent constraints, and display_label is optional. This adds value well beyond the raw schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Add a Control Rig hierarchy parent or available-space constraint.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like control_rig_add_control and control_rig_create by naming the constraint operation and the two supported modes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description makes the basic use case clear from the action itself, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly guided, and no sibling comparison is provided.

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