Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

export_assets

Destructive

Export Unreal Engine assets to files on disk in FBX, PNG, or EXR, mirroring package paths and reporting per-asset success or failure.

Instructions

Export assets to files via IAssetTools::ExportAssets (preferred format, FBX/PNG/EXR first), each written to export_path/., e.g. D:/Exports/Game/Meshes/SM_Rock.FBX. What was written is measured per asset on disk: exported lists each asset with its file, and not_exported the ones that did not load, have no exporter or failed to write. Succeeds only when every requested asset was written.

Returns: { exported_count: int, failed_count: int, requested_count: int, export_path: string, exported: [{ asset_path: string, file: string }], not_exported: [string] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_pathsYesAsset object or package paths to export (e.g. ["/Game/Meshes/SM_Rock"]); empty strings are ignored.
export_pathYesDestination directory on disk (e.g. "D:/Exports"), created if missing; each file lands in subfolders named after its package path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / asset_paths / description
      Previous value: -"List of asset paths to export"New value: +"Asset object or package paths to export (e.g. [\"/Game/Meshes/SM_Rock\"]); empty strings are ignored."
    • changedInput schema / properties / export_path / description
      Previous value: -"Destination directory on disk"New value: +"Destination directory on disk (e.g. \"D:/Exports\"), created if missing; each file lands in subfolders named after its package path."
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/destructive profile, and the description adds substantial behavior on top: exact on-disk write verification, the split between exported and not_exported with reasons (did not load, no exporter, failed to write), and the all-or-nothing success condition. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core action and path template, then failure semantics, then the return shape. It is slightly dense and repeats the return shape, but with no output schema present that repetition is justified rather than wasteful.

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 supplies the full return object (counts, path, exported/not_exported arrays), covers both required parameters' effects, and states path and failure semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 already 100%, but the description goes beyond the schema by spelling out the derived filename contract (export_path/<package path minus leading slash>.<extension>) with a concrete example, which is real semantic value the schema does not carry.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Export assets to files via IAssetTools::ExportAssets") and even names the internal API, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as export_asset_data, export_asset_as_text, or export_render_target, so an agent must infer which export tool applies.

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?

Usage is only implied: "preferred format, FBX/PNG/EXR first" hints at format selection and the atomicity note hints at expected outcomes, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no sibling alternative is named despite several other export_* tools existing.

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