Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

rename_niagara_emitter_handle

Destructive

Rename a Niagara System emitter handle and save the asset, using the system path and current name; check new_name and verified for the stored, sanitized display name.

Instructions

Rename an emitter handle of a Niagara System asset and save the system. The engine sanitizes the name and makes it unique among the emitters of the system, so read new_name and verified (false when the stored name differs from the request); a failed save is not reported.

Returns: { system_path: string, old_name: string, new_name: string, verified: bool }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_nameYesRequested display name; it may come back sanitized or with a numeric suffix.
system_pathYesNiagara System asset path, e.g. "/Game/FX/NS_Fire"; the call fails without it.
current_nameYesCurrent display name of the emitter handle (case-insensitive), as get_niagara_emitter_handles lists it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / current_name / description
      Previous value: -"Current display name of the emitter handle."New value: +"Current display name of the emitter handle (case-insensitive), as get_niagara_emitter_handles lists it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / new_name / description
      Previous value: -"New display name."New value: +"Requested display name; it may come back sanitized or with a numeric suffix."
    • changedInput schema / properties / system_path / description
      Previous value: -"Asset path of the Niagara System."New value: +"Niagara System asset path, e.g. \"/Game/FX/NS_Fire\"; the call fails without it."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "current_name",
-  "new_name"
-]New value: +[
+  "system_path",
+  "current_name",
+  "new_name"
+]
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only carry the safety profile: destructive=true, non-idempotent), the description discloses three material behaviors: the engine sanitizes and uniquifies the name, the caller must read back new_name and verified, and a failed save is silently unreported. The silent-failure warning is a genuine operational gotcha an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first clause and the critical read-back caveat immediately after. The explicit Returns line is somewhat redundant against the schema but is justified since there is no output schema; overall tight with little waste.

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?

For a 3-param, fully-documented mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the return object shape and the verification semantics. It could still note permission/context requirements, but it is essentially complete for correct invocation.

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, current_name, and new_name semantics (including that new_name may be sanitized). The description's extra value here is mostly about the returned new_name, not the input, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (rename) applied to a specific resource (an emitter handle of a Niagara System asset), and adds the consequential scope detail 'and save the system.' This is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling rename tools (rename_skeletal_mesh_socket, rename_rig_element, rename_data_table_row) since it names the exact Niagara emitter-handle domain.

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 implied by naming the target and referencing get_niagara_emitter_handles for the current_name source, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or direct statement of alternatives. The agent can infer context but the description doesn't route it against 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