Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

add_niagara_data_interface

Bind a new user-parameter data interface to a Niagara system, then recompile and save it in one undoable step; a same-name parameter of another class is rejected.

Instructions

Add a new UNiagaraDataInterface user-parameter binding to a Niagara system, inside an undo transaction, request a recompile and save the system; success requires the save. A user parameter that already has this name and class is left as is (added false, already_exists true, nothing saved); one with this name and any other type is an error. The inverse is remove_niagara_data_interface.

Returns: { system_path: string, parameter_name: string, data_interface_class: string, data_interface_class_path?: string, offset?: int, added?: bool, already_exists?: bool, saved: bool, save_error?: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
system_pathYesAsset path of the Niagara System.
parameter_nameYesShort name of the new user-parameter (no "User." prefix)
data_interface_classYesData interface class name (e.g. "StaticMesh", "Texture"): a loaded data interface class with that name, else /Script/Niagara.NiagaraDataInterface<Name>

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / data_interface_class / description
      Previous value: -"Data interface class name (e.g. \"StaticMesh\", \"Texture\"); resolved from /Script/Niagara.NiagaraDataInterface<Name> if not already loaded"New value: +"Data interface class name (e.g. \"StaticMesh\", \"Texture\"): a loaded data interface class with that name, else /Script/Niagara.NiagaraDataInterface<Name>"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "parameter_name",
-  "data_interface_class"
-]New value: +[
+  "system_path",
+  "parameter_name",
+  "data_interface_class"
+]
  3. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Enriches the annotations substantially: discloses that the call runs in an undo transaction, triggers a recompile, and only succeeds if the save succeeds, plus exact semantics for duplicate names (added=false, already_exists=true, nothing saved) and type conflicts (error). These side-effects and edge cases are not derivable from the annotations alone.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and side-effects, followed by edge-case semantics and the inverse pointer. The embedded Returns block is long but compensates for the absent output schema, so most sentences earn their place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering side-effects, the description covers side-effects, duplicate/error handling, success condition, and the full return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Add a new UNiagaraDataInterface user-parameter binding to a Niagara system') and distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_niagara_data_interface by naming it as the inverse. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly frames the operation context (inside an undo transaction, recompile, save required) and routes to the inverse tool. It also states the duplicate-name and wrong-type cases, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' beyond the inverse pointer.

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