Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_asset_lod_settings

DestructiveIdempotent

Set the real LOD count for a UStaticMesh asset by adding or removing source models, rebuilding, and saving to disk. SkeletalMesh LOD count changes are not applied; read-only LOD info is still reported.

Instructions

Sets the REAL LOD count on a UStaticMesh (adds/removes FStaticMeshSourceModel entries via AddSourceModel/RemoveSourceModel, rebuilds via PostEditChange, saves to disk). SkeletalMesh LOD-count mutation is NOT supported (would require the FLODUtilities mesh-reduction subsystem, out of scope) -- read-only LOD info is still reported honestly. Non-mesh assets fail with success:false.

Returns: { asset_path: string, requested_lod_count: number, asset_type: string, current_lod_count?: number, total_triangles?: number, total_vertices?: number, lod_data?: [object], saved?: bool, success: bool, message: string, error?: string, final_lod_count: number, lod_efficiency?: number, lod_recommendations?: [string] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lod_countYesThe desired number of LOD levels (1-8). Must be an integer. Only mutates for UStaticMesh; reported but not applied for SkeletalMesh/other.
asset_pathYesThe path to the asset in the asset registry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (destructive, idempotent, not read-only), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the internal mechanism (AddSourceModel/RemoveSourceModel, PostEditChange rebuild, saves to disk), the failed-to-support cases, and the non-mesh failure mode. This is exactly the kind of concrete behavior an agent needs before mutating an asset.

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 primary action and its scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and edge cases follow logically. The inline 'Returns:' block is a verbose raw dump of the whole response shape, which is slightly heavy, but there is no output schema so it earns most of its space.

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, disk-saving mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mechanism, supported/unsupported asset types, failure behavior, and the full return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 both parameters (lod_count, asset_path) are already fully documented in the schema, including the 1-8 range and the 'reported but not applied for SkeletalMesh' caveat. The description restates these boundaries but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the 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 and resource ('Sets the REAL LOD count on a UStaticMesh') and immediately disambiguates from the skeletal-mesh variant by declaring SkeletalMesh LOD-count mutation unsupported. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like set_skeletal_mesh_lod_settings and get_asset_lod_settings without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear when-to-use and explicit when-not (SkeletalMesh is out of scope, non-mesh assets fail) plus a note that read-only info remains available. It does not name the specific alternative tool such as get_asset_lod_settings, so it stops just short of full 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