Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_render_target_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads metadata from a UTextureRenderTarget2D asset—width, height, format, pixel format, and sRGB flag—without reading pixels or altering the asset.

Instructions

Read the metadata of a UTextureRenderTarget2D asset without reading pixels or changing it: width, height, format (RTF_*), pixel_format and is_srgb. For 2D-array or cube render targets use get_render_target_2d_array_info or get_render_target_cube_info; export_render_target writes the image to disk.

Returns: { render_target_name: string, asset_path: string, width: int, height: int, format: string, pixel_format: string, is_srgb: bool }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
render_target_pathYesAsset path of the render target, e.g. /Game/RenderTargets/RT_Example

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds the key scoping fact that no pixel data is read and nothing is mutated, plus enumerates the returned fields inline. It stops short of pixel-data caveats like format support, but the behavioral picture is solid.

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?

Two compact sentences and an explicit return shape. Every clause earns its place: verb, resource, exclusions, and return projection.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, including sibling routing. Small gap: no mention of failure modes if the path is invalid, but that is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described with an example path; the description reinforces the path semantics and the returned field set. With one parameter and full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the explicit return-shape hinting earns an extra point.

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 (read metadata) and resource (UTextureRenderTarget2D), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the 2D-array and cube siblings as well as from export_render_target. The scope is unambiguous ('without reading pixels or changing it').

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?

Names the two sibling tools for array and cube targets, and contrasts with export_render_target (disk write). The when-to-use vs when-not-to-use landscaping is explicit.

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