Create and modify Unreal Engine Blueprints programmatically: add variables and functions, connect pins, set defaults, compile, and retrieve a summary.
Blueprint authoring: create / add_variable / add_function / add_call_function / connect_pins / set_pin_default / compile / get_summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The authoring actions imply mutation, but the description does not disclose side effects, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or what compile or connect_pins actually do. The action names give minimal implicit context but fall well short of transparency for a mutation-heavy tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a multi-action tool with a nested params object, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It enumerates action names but leaves the per-action parameter contract and behavioral expectations almost entirely unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are two parameters, one of which is a nested object. The description usefully enumerates valid values for the action parameter, but it says nothing about the structure or requirements of the params object for each action, leaving half the parameter semantics undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource clearly as Blueprint authoring and enumerates the specific actions it supports (create, add_variable, add_function, etc.). That makes it distinguishable from siblings such as ue_world or ue_material, though the individual action names are not explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites for authoring operations, and no exclusions. It only lists action names, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.