Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

duplicate_niagara_module_in_stack

Duplicate a Niagara module in an emitter's spawn or update graph, optionally set script group and target index, and save the system.

Instructions

Duplicate a UNiagaraNodeFunctionCall module in a Niagara emitter's spawn or update graph.

Returns: { system_path: string, emitter_name: string, script_group: string, source_module_name: string, new_module_name: string, inserted_index: int, duplicated: bool, saved: bool, save_error?: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
module_nameYesDisplay name of the module to duplicate
system_pathYesAsset path of the Niagara System.
emitter_nameYesName of the emitter handle.
script_groupNoOptional "spawn" or "update"; defaults to "update"
target_index_overrideNoOptional absolute target index for the duplicate; defaults to one-past-source

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=false. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape, notably 'saved' and 'save_error', which tells an agent the operation persists the asset and can fail on save. It does not explain auth needs or the effect of target_index_override, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and tight. The 'Returns:' block is verbose but earns its place since no output schema exists. Nothing is wasted, though it could be marginally tighter.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately inlines the return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. Parameter meanings live in the schema. The main gap is the absence of any prerequisite or persistence guidance for a mutating tool, so it falls just short of complete.

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, including the defaults for script_group and target_index_override. The description adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already carries, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb (duplicate) and a precisely named resource (a UNiagaraNodeFunctionCall module inside a Niagara emitter's spawn or update graph), so an agent can tell it apart from add_niagara_module_to_stack or move_niagara_modules. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, which holds it below a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus duplicate_niagara_emitter_handle, add_niagara_module_to_stack, or reorder_niagara_modules. The spawn/update mention is descriptive of the target, not usage guidance, and no prerequisites are given.

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