Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unreal-MCP

Unreal-MCP

by aadeshrao123
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

rename_widget

Rename a widget in Unreal Engine with automatic Blueprint variable tracking updates.

Instructions

Rename a widget (fixes up Blueprint variable tracking if bIsVariable).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "widget_blueprint_path": "<widget_blueprint_path>",
      "widget_name": "<widget_name>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_nameYes
widget_nameYes
widget_blueprint_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral insight (fixes up Blueprint variable tracking), but does not disclose other potential side effects, permissions, or error states. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Single sentence with a parenthetical clarification. Front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundant words. Every word contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the moderate complexity (3 required string params, output schema present), the description covers the key behavior but lacks details such as naming rules, uniqueness constraints, or what happens if the widget doesn't exist. Minimal but sufficient for a simple rename.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the purpose or constraints of any parameter (new_name, widget_name, widget_blueprint_path). The agent must infer meanings from parameter names 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?

Description clearly states the action (rename) and the resource (widget), and adds specific context about fixing Blueprint variable tracking if bIsVariable. This distinguishes it from sibling rename tools for assets, data table rows, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other rename tools (e.g., rename_asset). The description implies use for widgets but does not provide alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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