Skip to main content
Glama

create_level_variant_sets

Create a Level Variant Sets asset with variant sets and variants to capture and switch actor properties—materials, meshes, visibility, transforms—for product configurators.

Instructions

Create a Level Variant Sets asset for product configurator / variant switching.

From Ch. 20: Level Variant Sets is an asset containing multiple Variant Sets, each containing Variants. Each Variant captures specific property changes on actors in the level (materials, meshes, visibility, transforms).

Structure: LevelVariantSets (asset) └── VariantSet (e.g., "Color", "Wheels", "Interior") ├── Variant (e.g., "Red", "Blue", "Green") │ └── Captured Properties (actor -> property -> value) └── Variant (e.g., "Black")

Args: name: Level Variant Sets asset name variant_sets: List of variant set definitions: [{"name": str, "variants": [{"name": str, "captures": [...]}]}] folder_path: Content browser folder

Example: create_level_variant_sets()

KB: see knowledge_base/17_GAME_SYSTEMS_COOKBOOK.md#overview

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoLVS_ProductConfigurator
folder_pathNo/Game/Configurator
variant_setsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it explains the asset's hierarchy, what each Variant captures, lists arguments, and references a knowledge base chapter. It doesn't mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or failure cases, but the detailed data structure and example provide significant transparency beyond the action name.

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 description is longer than average but well-structured: purpose, hierarchy diagram, args, example, and KB reference. Each section adds value for a complex data structure, though the 'From Ch. 20' intro and the diagram could be slightly tightened without loss.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what is created, how it is structured, what the arguments mean, and an example. It stops short of covering edge cases like duplicate names or required captures, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return-value details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates with an 'Args:' section that defines each parameter in plain language and provides the exact JSON structure for variant_sets with an example. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema property names and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Level Variant Sets asset for product configurator / variant switching.' It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like add_variant_to_level_variant_sets by focusing on the asset creation and its internal structure. The additional hierarchy breakdown makes the intended function unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear context ('for product configurator / variant switching') and describes the asset structure, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or route to alternatives such as add_variant_to_level_variant_sets for extending an existing asset, leaving the selection to inference.

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