Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_niagara_emitter_enabled

DestructiveIdempotent

Toggle a Niagara emitter on or off by system path and emitter name to control which effects are active, with state read back and verified.

Instructions

Enable or disable an emitter handle on a Niagara system.

Returns: { system_path: string, emitter_name: string, enabled: bool, state_changed: bool, verified: bool, is_enabled_read_back: bool }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledNoOptional bool; defaults to true
system_pathYesAsset path of the Niagara System.
emitter_nameYesDisplay name 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent=true, destructive=true), but the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the return fields, notably state_changed and verified, which tell the agent the tool confirms the mutation rather than assuming success.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation stated first and the return shape second. The Returns block is slightly verbose but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return object, and it names the operation target precisely. It omits whether the change is persisted to the asset or requires a save, which is a minor gap for a mutation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents system_path, emitter_name, and the optional enabled flag (default true). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pair (enable/disable) and a precise resource (emitter handle on a Niagara system), which cleanly separates it from sibling toggles like set_niagara_module_enabled or set_niagara_emitter_local_space.

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 the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related siblings such as set_niagara_module_enabled, set_niagara_emitter_allocation_mode, or set_niagara_emitter_sim_target. No exclusions or prerequisites 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