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

unreal-mcp-additional-tools

by nodormu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

run_editor_utility_blueprint

Execute an Editor Utility Blueprint's Run event by providing its asset path, triggering custom editor logic directly from MCP.

Instructions

Run an Editor Utility Blueprint's Run event.

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": {
      "blueprint_path": "<blueprint_path>"
    },
    "name": "run_editor_utility_blueprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blueprint_pathYesEditor Utility Blueprint asset path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, or expected outcomes. The term 'run' implies an action but gives no detail on consequences or return values.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema) reduces the need for extensive explanation, but the description still omits critical context such as what happens after running, potential errors, or any dependencies. Thus it is incomplete for a new user.

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?

The single parameter has a description ('Editor Utility Blueprint asset path') that matches its name and adds minimal context. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds only a bit of clarity, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it runs an Editor Utility Blueprint's Run event. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like run_editor_utility_widget, which runs widgets instead.

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 versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this would be preferred over other tools.

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