Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

list_niagara_modules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect a Niagara emitter stack to list module function-call nodes with names, GUIDs, enabled state, pins, and deprecation for spawn or update graphs.

Instructions

List the module function-call nodes on ONE stack of a Niagara emitter (read-only). Resolves the emitter's spawn OR update group graph (script_group, default "update") via the export-safe ResolveEmitterOutputNode + UNiagaraGraph::GetNodesOfClass path, then reports each UNiagaraNodeFunctionCall: index, module_name (GetFunctionName), node_guid, function_script(+class), is_enabled (IsNodeEnabled), is_deprecated, input/output pin counts. Honest-empty modules:[] when the stack has no modules or the graph is not resolvable (a note is returned).

Returns: { system_path: string, emitter_name: string, script_group: string, module_count: int, total_modules_in_stack: int, modules: [{ index, script_group, module_name, node_guid, function_script?, function_script_class?, is_enabled, is_deprecated, input_pin_count, output_pin_count, total_modules_in_stack }], note?: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
system_pathYesAsset path of the Niagara System.
emitter_nameYesName of the emitter handle.
script_groupNoOptional "spawn" or "update"; defaults to "update".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the resolution path used, the exact fields reported (is_enabled, is_deprecated, pin counts), and notably the "honest-empty modules:[] when the stack has no modules or the graph is not resolvable (a note is returned)" failure mode. That empty-vs-error contract is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from 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 leading sentence front-loads purpose and the read-only marker, and the Returns block is valuable given no output schema. However, the middle sentence is dense with internal implementation identifiers (ResolveEmitterOutputNode, UNiagaraGraph::GetNodesOfClass) that read as noise for tool selection.

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?

With no output schema present, the description fully compensates by spelling out the return shape (system_path, emitter_name, script_group, module_count, modules[] with per-field detail, optional note). Combined with annotations and complete parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 system_path, emitter_name, and script_group (including the "update" default). The description restates that script_group selects the spawn or update group graph but adds no format/syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description names a specific verb ("List") and a tightly scoped resource ("module function-call nodes on ONE stack of a Niagara emitter"), and it explicitly marks itself read-only. The scope is unusually precise, but it never names or routes against near siblings such as get_niagara_module_stack or get_niagara_module_info, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only implied through the scope statement (one stack, spawn or update group, defaults to "update"). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the alternative tools that also inspect Niagara modules, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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