Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_niagara_emitter_sim_target

DestructiveIdempotent

Set a Niagara emitter's simulation target to CPUSim or GPUComputeSim, with optional local space and determinism overrides, then save the system.

Instructions

Configure the simulation target of a Niagara emitter. Sets SimTarget, and optionally bLocalSpace and bDeterministic, on the emitter's FVersionedNiagaraEmitterData. The system is saved after modification.

Returns: { system_path: string, emitter_name: string, sim_target: string, success: bool }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sim_targetYesTarget type — "CPUSim" or "GPUComputeSim".
local_spaceNoOptional bool override for bLocalSpace
system_pathYesAsset path of the Niagara System.
emitter_nameYesDisplay name of the emitter handle.
deterministicNoOptional bool override for bDeterminism

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "emitter_name",
-  "sim_target"
-]New value: +[
+  "system_path",
+  "emitter_name",
+  "sim_target"
+]
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a real side effect not captured there: the system is saved after modification, so the change persists on disk. It also states the return payload. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true implication (what is lost when switching sim target) or any auth/permission requirement, keeping it short of a 5.

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 action and target front-loaded, followed by a compact return signature. The return block earns its place because there is no output schema, though it is not otherwise effusive. No filler.

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 mutation tool with an annotations block, full param coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, fields touched, persistence side effect, and return shape. The only meaningful gap is the absence of guidance on preconditions and interaction with overlapping local-space/deterministic setter siblings.

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% and the sim_target enum values ("CPUSim"/"GPUComputeSim") are documented in the schema, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating the underlying property names (bLocalSpace/bDeterminism). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 (Configure/Sets) and resource (an emitter's simulation target, SimTarget on FVersionedNiagaraEmitterData), which is precise enough to distinguish it from read-side siblings like get_niagara_emitter_sim_target. The optional fields it also touches are named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., system must be loaded), and no routing to related siblings such as set_niagara_emitter_local_space or set_niagara_system_deterministic, despite clear functional overlap. The agent has to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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