Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

export_asset_data

Destructive

Export an Unreal asset's class, package, and editable/Blueprint-visible properties to a timestamped JSON or TXT file for review, diffing, or backup.

Instructions

Load an asset and write its class, package and every editable or Blueprint-visible property, as details-panel text, to a new file Saved/Exports/Assets/Name_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS.json or .txt in the project. Returns export_file_path, export_success and file sizes; an unsupported format writes nothing (export_success=false).

Returns: { asset_path: string, export_format: string, export_success: bool, export_message: string, export_file_path: string, export_file_name: string, export_file_size_bytes: int, export_file_size_mb: number, asset_class: string, package_name: string, original_file_size_bytes: int, original_file_size_mb: number, export_timestamp: string, export_status: string, export_directory: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_pathYesPackage or object path of the asset (e.g., '/Game/MyAsset'); the file is named after its last segment.
export_formatYesExport format: 'json' or 'txt'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / asset_path / description
      Previous value: -"Full path to the asset (e.g., '/Game/MyAsset')."New value: +"Package or object path of the asset (e.g., '/Game/MyAsset'); the file is named after its last segment."
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it is non-read-only and destructive; the description adds the exact output path pattern, the content scope, and the unsupported-format failure mode. It still does not explain what makes the operation destructive or whether existing files can be overwritten, so it misses a full translucent write profile.

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?

It front-loads the core action and then includes a structured return listing because no output schema exists, making the length justified. The return field list is dense but earns its place by compensating for the missing output schema.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output location, failure behavior, and return fields thoroughly. Missing prerequisites such as whether the asset must already be loaded or whether exports can overwrite existing files keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the format-failure behavior but no additional syntax or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It uses a specific verb and resource ('Load an asset and write...') and enumerates exactly what gets exported, including class, package and all editable/Blueprint-visible properties. It does not differentiate itself from nearby export siblings such as export_asset_as_text or export_assets, so it falls short of the top tier for sibling routing.

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?

The description never states when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is wanting a textual dump of asset properties, which leaves the agent to infer the context.

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