Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_niagara_emitter_local_space

DestructiveIdempotent

Set whether a Niagara emitter simulates in local or world space and save the system, returning applied and saved status.

Instructions

Set whether one emitter of a Niagara System asset simulates in local space (bLocalSpace on its emitter data), then save the system. Returns local_space as read back, applied and saved (with save_error); the reply stays success even when the save fails, so check saved.

Returns: { system_path: string, emitter_name: string, local_space: bool, applied: bool, saved: bool, save_error?: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
local_spaceYestrue to simulate the particles of the emitter in its local space, false for world space; the call fails without it.
system_pathYesNiagara System asset path, e.g. "/Game/FX/NS_Fire"; the call fails without it.
emitter_nameYesDisplay name of the emitter handle (case-insensitive).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / emitter_name / description
      Previous value: -"Name of the emitter handle."New value: +"Display name of the emitter handle (case-insensitive)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / local_space / description
      Previous value: -"Boolean to assign to bLocalSpace"New value: +"true to simulate the particles of the emitter in its local space, false for world space; the call fails without it."
    • 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: -[
-  "emitter_name"
-]New value: +[
+  "system_path",
+  "emitter_name",
+  "local_space"
+]
  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 (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that the call mutates the asset AND saves the system, that local_space is read back from the emitter after applying, and critically that the reply stays success even when the save fails so the caller must inspect saved/save_error. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior annotations cannot convey.

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: the operation and its side effect first, then the return shape and the saved-check caveat. No filler, though the inline return object literal makes it a little dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly supplies the return shape (system_path, emitter_name, local_space, applied, saved, save_error) plus the failure-semantics caveat. Combined with annotations covering mutation and idempotency, an agent has nearly everything needed; minor omissions are prerequisites such as whether the asset must be loaded first.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the underlying property name bLocalSpace and notes the value is read back; it does not add format, defaulting, or case-sensitivity nuance beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a precise verb and scope: set whether one emitter of a Niagara System asset simulates in local space, and it explicitly maps that to the underlying bLocalSpace emitter property. This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent siblings such as set_niagara_emitter_sim_target, set_niagara_emitter_enabled, and set_niagara_emitter_bounds.

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 narrow scope (one emitter of one system, followed by a save), but the description never states when to prefer this over related setters or what prerequisites exist (e.g. the asset being loaded, editing context). It does give one actionable directive—check saved rather than trusting the success reply—which is useful but is result-handling guidance rather than when-to-use 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