Retrieve the original Niagara module-stack recipe for a named VFX effect, enabling you to inspect or replicate its particle setup.
Return an original Niagara module-stack recipe for a named effect.
KB: see knowledge_base/09_NIAGARA_VFX.md#overview Example: niagara_get_effect_recipe()
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipe_name | No | blackhole_orb_inflow |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Return' which implies a read-only retrieval, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, prerequisites, or what happens for unknown recipe names. The description adds only the basic action and leaves behavioral expectations unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the action, followed by a useful KB reference and a call example. It contains no filler. The example is somewhat minimal but the overall structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description plus KB link may be enough for basic use. However, it leaves gaps around valid recipe names, the meaning of 'original', and behavior when the requested effect is not found. It is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives a slight semantic hint that the parameter is a 'named effect', which maps to recipe_name, but it never names the parameter, explains valid values, or points to where available recipe names can be found. The example call omits the parameter, relying entirely on the schema default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Return') on a specific resource ('original Niagara module-stack recipe') for a named effect. This distinguishes it from the many sibling Niagara tools focused on creating, describing, or modifying systems. However, 'original' is slightly ambiguous and it doesn't explicitly contrast with related tools like niagara_describe_system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: call this when you need a module-stack recipe for a named effect. The KB link and example provide some context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related Niagara tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.