Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
unreal-mcp-additional-tools

unreal-mcp-additional-tools

by nodormu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

build_plugin

Build Unreal Engine plugins as standalone packages. Specify the .uplugin file and output directory to produce a distributable plugin build.

Instructions

Build a plugin standalone.

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": {
      "plugin_path": "<plugin_path>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "build_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
platformNoTarget platform
output_pathYesOutput directory for the built plugin
plugin_pathYesPath to the .uplugin file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. The single sentence 'Build a plugin standalone' discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, required environment, outputs, or error handling. This is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than concise clarity. It lacks essential context that a tool description should provide, making the brevity a detriment rather than a strength.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a build operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what 'standalone' means, the build process, expected outputs, and potential prerequisites. It provides none of this, leaving the agent without adequate context for effective use.

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 baseline is 3. All three parameters are documented in the schema, and the description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('plugin'), which clearly indicates the tool's core function. It partially distinguishes from sibling build tools by targeting plugins, though the term 'standalone' is vague and could be more explicit about the build output type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Sibling tools like build_target, build_cook_run, and package_project exist, but the description does not mention any differentiation or context for choosing this tool.

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