Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UE5-MCP-Server

UE5-MCP-Server

by hahatu112113
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

ue5_set_material

Applies a material to a StaticMeshComponent on a specified actor using its object path and material asset path.

Instructions

Applies a material to a StaticMeshComponent on an actor. The component is accessed as '.StaticMeshComponent0'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "actorPath": "<actorPath>",
      "materialPath": "<materialPath>"
    },
    "name": "ue5_set_material"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actorPathYesThe full object path of the StaticMeshActor.
materialPathYesThe asset path of the material (e.g., '/Game/StarterContent/Materials/M_Ground_Grass.M_Ground_Grass').
elementIndexNoMaterial slot index. Default: 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds behavioral context by revealing the component naming convention (<actorPath>.StaticMeshComponent0), which is not in the schema. However, no annotations are provided, and side effects (e.g., whether the operation is persisted) are not disclosed.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the action and adding a key implementation detail without waste.

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 simple mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it omits any return value or confirmation of success, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining how the component is accessed, which supplements the schema descriptions. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool applies a material to a StaticMeshComponent on an actor, specifying the component path. It distinguishes from siblings like ue5_set_property by focusing on materials.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ue5_set_property for other property changes). No prerequisites or use cases are mentioned.

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