Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_pcg_node_properties

DestructiveIdempotent

Merge selected properties into a PCG graph node's settings, clamp values, regenerate pins, and verify the saved asset.

Instructions

Authors a PCG node's settings object via reflection (partial merge + clamp). Only the keys present in properties are written; absent keys are untouched. After the merge, PostEditChange() invalidates the node's cached CRC and regenerates its pins. The graph is re-saved and the persisted settings are read back. Idempotent: re-applying the same values is a no-op.

Returns: { graph_name: string, asset_path: string, node_name: string, settings_class: string, applied_keys: [string], properties: object, saved: bool, save_error: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_nameYesThe node_name from get_pcg_graph_info of the node to author (the tokens "Input"/"Output" address the implicit endpoints).
propertiesYesObject of UPCGSettings fields to merge (e.g. for a SurfaceSampler: bApplyDensityToPoints(bool), PointsPerSquaredMeter(float>=0), Looseness(float)); absent keys untouched.
pcg_graph_pathYesAsset path of the PCG Graph (e.g. "/Game/PCG/PCG_Example" or fully-qualified "/Game/PCG/PCG_Example.PCG_Example").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: partial-merge scope, PostEditChange invalidating the cached CRC and regenerating pins, the re-save of the graph, and read-back of persisted settings. This explains the mutation's ripple effects an agent needs to know before writing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose, then merge semantics, then side effects, then return shape in a tight sequence. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by spelling out the full return shape (graph_name, applied_keys, saved, save_error). Combined with mutation side effects and merge behavior, this is complete for a 3-param nested-object authoring 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 all three params (node_name, properties, pcg_graph_path) are already documented, including the input/output endpoint token convention. The description's merge semantics reinforce the properties param but add no syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 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+resource: 'Authors a PCG node's settings object', distinguishing it from read-side siblings like get_pcg_node_properties and adjacent writers like set_pcg_component_properties. The 'partial merge + clamp' framing further narrows the operation.

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?

Describes the semantics of what gets written (only keys present in properties; absent untouched), which is implied usage guidance, but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites/context. Adequate but with a clear gap on when-to-use routing.

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