Skip to main content
Glama

get_material_graph_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a UMaterial's expression graph by asset path, listing nodes, inputs, and connections for AI-driven material inspection and dependency tracing.

Instructions

Read the full expression graph of a UMaterial (nodes + connections). Enumerates UMaterial::GetExpressions() and walks each expression's FExpressionInput Inputs[] array. For every connected input, the connection is also flattened into the top-level connections[] list for easy graph-walking.

Returns: { material_path: string, node_count: number, nodes: [{ name: string, class: string, inputs: [{ index: number, input_name: string, source?: string, source_output_index?: number }], input_count: number }], connection_count: number, connections: [{ from: string, from_output_index: number, to: string, to_input: string }] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
material_pathYesFull asset path of the UMaterial.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive, and non-open-world, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the traversal behavior and the flattened connections[] list, but does not disclose error handling, asset-loading requirements, or performance characteristics 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose and then details the traversal and return structure. The return-shape block is long but justified because there is no output schema. The implementation detail about GetExpressions() and FExpressionInput is slightly verbose but supports understanding the flattened connections output.

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?

The description compensates for the missing output schema by fully specifying the return structure. It covers the input parameter via schema and the safety profile via annotations. It does not mention failure cases such as invalid or unloaded material_path, but for a read-only graph inspection tool the description is otherwise 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%, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic detail about material_path beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage 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 and resource: 'Read the full expression graph of a UMaterial (nodes + connections).' It also clarifies the scope by mentioning nodes and connections, which implicitly differentiates it from simpler expression-listing siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or compare against any sibling tool such as get_material_expressions.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It only explains what the tool does and what it returns. An agent gets no help deciding between this and other material-graph-related siblings.

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