Skip to main content
Glama

find_blueprint_assets_by_class

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search a content path for every Blueprint asset whose generated class derives from a target UClass. Use it to inventory Blueprints by C++ parent without scanning folders manually.

Instructions

Search a content path for every Blueprint ASSET whose generated class derives from a target UClass, returning asset name, asset path, generated class and the deepest NATIVE parent -- "give me every Blueprint that is a Pawn / a Widget / an ActorComponent" without hand-scanning folders. Use get_blueprint_children when the base is itself a Blueprint rather than a C++ class, list_derived_classes for classes instead of assets, and get_assets_by_tag when you want a registry tag rather than an inheritance test. WARNING: it LOADS every Blueprint under package_path to read its GeneratedClass, so scope the path narrowly on a big project rather than sweeping all of /Game.

Returns: { class_name, target_class, package_path, total, assets:[{ asset_name, asset_path, generated_class, native_parent }] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
class_nameYesUClass short name or /Script/ path (e.g. "Pawn", "/Script/Engine.Pawn"); a bare name is also retried with a "U" prefix. An unresolvable name is an error, not an empty result.
package_pathNoContent path to scan, recursive (default "/Game"). Narrow it: every Blueprint underneath gets loaded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operationally significant context not in the annotations: the tool LOADS every Blueprint under package_path to read its GeneratedClass, with an explicit warning to scope the path narrowly on large projects.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the use case, alternatives, warning, and return shape in order of importance. Each sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.

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 return shape ({ class_name, target_class, package_path, total, assets:[...] }), closing the one gap annotations and schema leave open. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the U-prefix retry and recursive default). The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource ('Search a content path for every Blueprint ASSET whose generated class derives from a target UClass') and immediately names the sibling alternatives. An agent can distinguish it from get_blueprint_children, list_derived_classes, and get_assets_by_tag without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names three alternative tools with the exact condition that selects each ('when the base is itself a Blueprint', 'for classes instead of assets', 'when you want a registry tag rather than an inheritance test'). This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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