Skip to main content
Glama

create_landscape_layer_info

Idempotent

Creates and saves the LandscapeLayerInfo asset needed before an Unreal terrain paint layer can store weight for grass, rock, sand, or snow.

Instructions

Create and save the LandscapeLayerInfo asset that a terrain paint layer needs before it can hold weight (grass, rock, sand, snow...). Step 1 of three: create the asset here, register it on the terrain with add_landscape_layer, then paint weight with paint_landscape_layer. Idempotent-ish -- an existing asset comes back with already_exists=true.

Returns: { name: string, package_path: string, asset_path: string, layer_name: string, layer_info_class: string, created: bool, already_exists: bool, saved: bool, message: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAsset name, e.g. LI_Grass
layer_nameNoEngine-side weight layer name, defaults to asset name
package_pathNoTarget content path, defaults to /Game/Landscape

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, and the description adds the important behavioral caveat that an existing asset returns already_exists=true ('Idempotent-ish'), plus a full return shape. This is real context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, workflow position, and return contract, all front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

Covers the create/register/paint workflow, the idempotency nuance, and an inline return schema for a tool that has no output schema. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, layer_name and package_path including defaults. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create and save the LandscapeLayerInfo asset'), explains what it is for ('terrain paint layer needs before it can hold weight'), and situates it in the landscape workflow relative to siblings add_landscape_layer and paint_landscape_layer.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly frames itself as 'Step 1 of three' and names the two follow-on tools with their ordering, so an agent knows exactly when to use this versus the alternatives.

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