Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

create_material_parameter_collection

Idempotent

Create and save a UMaterialParameterCollection asset at a content path, returning its path and parameter counts. Existing collections are returned as-is instead of overwritten.

Instructions

Create a UMaterialParameterCollection asset at package_path/name and save it to disk. Idempotent: an existing collection there is returned with created=false and already_exists=true, while another asset type at that path is an error. Returns collection_path, scalar_count, vector_count and saved.

Returns: { name: string, package_path: string, collection_path: string, asset_path: string, collection_class: string, scalar_count: int, vector_count: int, created: bool, already_exists: bool, success: bool, saved: bool, message: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAsset name without a path, e.g. "MPC_Global"
package_pathNoContent folder for the asset, e.g. "/Game/MaterialCollections" (the default)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Asset name, e.g. MPC_Global"New value: +"Asset name without a path, e.g. \"MPC_Global\""
    • changedInput schema / properties / package_path / description
      Previous value: -"Target content path, defaults to /Game/MaterialCollections"New value: +"Content folder for the asset, e.g. \"/Game/MaterialCollections\" (the default)"
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only flag idempotentHint=true, but the description explains exactly what that means here: an existing collection returns created=false/already_exists=true, while a different asset type at the path is an error. It also discloses that the asset is saved to disk and returns a saved flag, adding real behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 create action and idempotency contract in two tight sentences. The shorthand return listing ('collection_path, scalar_count, vector_count and saved') is immediately repeated in the full Returns block, a minor redundancy, but overall efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the inline return signature is necessary and provided. Idempotency, error behavior, and the save side effect are covered; only small gaps remain (e.g. what happens to the returned counts, or permissions needed to write to disk).

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 both parameters (name, package_path) are already documented, including the default path. The description restates the package_path/name composition but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a UMaterialParameterCollection asset at package_path/name') and scope ('save it to disk'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_material_parameter_collection_instance by saying it creates the asset itself, but never names that sibling, so differentiation relies on inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through the idempotency contract (calling again on an existing collection is safe), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives like duplicate_mpc or create_material_parameter_collection_instance. Adequate but clearly gapped.

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