Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

add_niagara_module_to_graph

Insert a UNiagaraScript module into a Niagara emitter's particle stack graph at a chosen index, with optional spawn/update grouping and append fallback.

Instructions

Insert a UNiagaraScript module at a specific index in a Niagara emitter's particle stack graph.

Returns: { system_path: string, emitter_name: string, module_script_path: string, script_group: string, target_index: int, module_node_name: string, added: bool, saved: bool, save_error?: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
system_pathYesAsset path of the Niagara System.
emitter_nameYesName of the emitter handle.
script_groupNoOptional "spawn" or "update"; defaults to "update"
target_indexNoOptional stack index for insertion; INDEX_NONE (-1) appends to the end
module_script_pathYesAsset path of the module UNiagaraScript

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "emitter_name",
-  "module_script_path"
-]New value: +[
+  "system_path",
+  "emitter_name",
+  "module_script_path"
+]
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of behavioral context by exposing the return payload, including 'added' and 'saved' flags plus an optional 'save_error', which hints the operation persists the asset and can partially fail. It does not explain idempotency consequences (repeated calls presumably append duplicates) or what happens when the target index is out of range.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by an inline return shape. There is almost no filler, though the return block is somewhat dense and could have been omitted or summarized since a structured return contract would normally live in an output schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by documenting the return fields. However, for a mutating Niagara tool whose closest sibling (add_niagara_module_to_stack) appears functionally overlapping, the absence of any disambiguation leaves an important selection gap unresolved.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the script_group enum values and INDEX_NONE (-1) semantics for target_index. The description only echoes the scoping concepts ('at a specific index', 'particle stack graph') without adding format, constraints, or default behavior beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a precise verb and resource: inserting a UNiagaraScript module into a Niagara emitter's particle stack graph at a given index. It is clear on its own, but it does nothing to separate itself from the very similarly named sibling add_niagara_module_to_stack, which an agent could easily pick 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over add_niagara_module_to_stack or reorder_niagara_modules. The reader has to infer everything about tool selection from the name and the surrounding Niagara family.

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