Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_niagara_event_handler

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a Niagara event handler from a specified emitter using its usage_id. The system is saved after removal, and missing handlers return already_removed without error.

Instructions

Remove an event handler from a Niagara emitter by its usage_id. Calls UNiagaraEmitter::RemoveEventHandlerByUsageId. Idempotent: if no handler with that usage_id exists it reports already_removed without error. The system is saved after a removal.

Returns: { system_path: string, emitter_name: string, usage_id: string, already_removed: bool, removed: bool, event_handler_count: int, saved: bool, save_error?: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usage_idYesThe handler's usage_id (as returned by add_niagara_event_handler / get_niagara_event_handlers).
system_pathYesAsset path of the Niagara System.
emitter_nameYesDisplay name of the emitter handle within the system.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it states the exact idempotent behavior ('reports already_removed without error'), that the system is saved after removal, and it enumerates the full return shape including already_removed, removed, saved, and save_error.

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 definition is short and front-loaded: purpose first, then idempotency and save behavior, then return values. One sentence ('Calls UNiagaraEmitter::RemoveEventHandlerByUsageId') is implementation detail that an agent does not need for selection or invocation, so it is not fully waste-free.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and three fully documented required inputs, the description supplies the missing return shape and critical behavioral facts (idempotency, auto-save, save_error). Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 the schema already documents system_path, emitter_name, and usage_id. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for these input parameters, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is complete.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an event handler from a Niagara emitter by its usage_id.' It identifies the exact operation and the key identifier needed, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like add_niagara_event_handler and get_niagara_event_handlers.

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?

The description implies usage by stating what removal means and how idempotency behaves, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The schema mentions where usage_id comes from, but the description itself provides no explicit routing guidance.

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