Skip to main content
Glama

consolidate_assets

Destructive

Redirect references from compatible source assets to a target asset, delete sources with redirectors, and save changes; preview with dry run.

Instructions

Redirect every reference to the source assets onto the target with UEditorAssetSubsystem::ConsolidateAssets, which DELETES the sources (leaving redirectors) and saves what it changed. Only class-compatible sources are used; others are listed in skipped_incompatible and unloadable ones are dropped silently. dry_run=true only reports.

Returns: dry_run=true: { target_asset_path, target_class, dry_run: true, would_consolidate: [string], skipped_incompatible: [{path,class}], compatible_count: int, incompatible_count: int }; dry_run=false (default): { target_asset_path, target_class, dry_run: false, consolidated_count: int, source_count: int, success: bool, skipped_incompatible: [{path,class}], incompatible_count: int }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoIf true, skip ConsolidateAssets entirely and only report what would happen, default false
target_asset_pathYesThe asset to keep, all references point here
source_asset_pathsYesAssets to consolidate into the target

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it says sources are deleted (redirectors remain), that changes are saved, that only class-compatible sources apply, and that unloadable ones are silently dropped. That silent-drop behavior is exactly the kind of edge case an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the operation and its destructive nature, then details dry_run semantics and return shapes. The embedded Returns block is long but justified since there is no output schema; every clause carries real information.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents both return shapes (dry_run true and false, including skipped_incompatible and counts), covers the destructive mutation, the redirector side effect, and dry_run behavior. Nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to source_asset_paths by stating only class-compatible sources are used and the rest surface in skipped_incompatible. The dry_run explanation largely duplicates the schema's own description.

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 (redirect references, consolidate) plus the exact engine function, and clarifies the destructive side effect (DELETES sources, leaves redirectors). An agent immediately distinguishes this from naming/utility siblings like rename_asset or fixup_redirectors.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the one decision that matters (dry_run=true reports without acting), giving clear context for safe preview vs execution. It stops short of naming when to prefer alternatives such as fixup_redirectors or migrate_assets, so it isn't full when/when-not 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