Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_niagara_emitter_bounds

DestructiveIdempotent

Set a Niagara emitter's bounds calculation mode and fixed bounds, defining its bounding volume for rendering and simulation in Unreal Engine.

Instructions

Set the CalculateBoundsMode and FixedBounds on a Niagara emitter's FVersionedNiagaraEmitterData.

Returns: { system_path: string, emitter_name: string, bounds_mode: string, bounds_min: string, bounds_max: string, applied: bool, saved: bool, save_error?: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bounds_maxNoOptional [x, y, z] string (FVector) for the FixedBounds maximum
bounds_minNoOptional [x, y, z] string (FVector) for the FixedBounds minimum
bounds_modeNoOne of "Dynamic", "Fixed", or "Programmable"; defaults to "Fixed"
system_pathYesAsset path of the Niagara System.
emitter_nameYesName of the emitter handle.

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds value by exposing a return payload with 'applied' and 'saved' flags plus a 'save_error' field, signaling that the operation mutates and persists the asset and can fail on save. It does not explain what existing bounds data is overwritten or the default behavior, so it is a moderate addition rather than a rich one.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the return shape is appended compactly. No filler, though the return value could arguably live in an output schema rather than the description body.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description does supply the return shape and, with annotations, covers the write/destructive profile. It still omits the emitter-vs-system distinction and what happens to pre-existing bounds, leaving a gap an agent must infer.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema (modes, FVector string formats, defaults). The description only references the underlying fields (CalculateBoundsMode, FixedBounds) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb (Set) and names the exact fields (CalculateBoundsMode and FixedBounds) on a precisely scoped resource (a Niagara emitter's FVersionedNiagaraEmitterData). This differentiates it from the system-level sibling set_niagara_system_fixed_bounds by explicitly anchoring to the emitter, though it never names that alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_niagara_system_fixed_bounds or set_niagara_emitter_sim_target. Usage is only implied by the emitter-scoped target; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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