Skip to main content
Glama

get_asset_dependencies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all packages a given asset depends on, including each dependency's class and loaded state, so you can assess migration or import budgets.

Instructions

List every package an asset DEPENDS ON (its outgoing edges), each with its class and loaded state -- "what does this asset drag in with it?", the input to a migration or import budget. Direction matters: this is what the asset NEEDS; get_asset_dependents / get_asset_referencers answer who needs IT. Use get_asset_dependencies_recursive for the transitive closure and check_asset_circular_dependency to detect cycles. WARNING: these are PACKAGE-level edges from the Asset Registry: they cannot tell you WHICH node or property creates the edge (that is find_blueprint_node_references), and a name built at runtime or resolved through a DataRegistry produces no edge at all.

Returns: { asset_name: string, asset_path: string, dependencies: [object], dependencies_count: int, total_dependencies: int, max_results: int, results_truncated: bool, exclude_engine: bool, dependency_type: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_nameYesExact asset name or full package name; the bare-name fallback scans /Game only and stops at the FIRST match, without reporting that others existed
max_resultsNoMaximum dependencies to return, 1..50000 (default 5000). Read `results_truncated` for the real answer: `total_dependencies` counts the RAW registry edges before exclude_engine, so it exceeds dependencies_count on almost every asset without anything having been cut.
exclude_engineNoSkip /Engine and /Script dependencies, default true. Filtered entries do NOT consume the max_results budget, but they ARE counted in total_dependencies.
dependency_typeNoFilter by dependency kind: "hard", "soft", or "all" (case-insensitive), default "all"

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 cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: edges are package-level from the Asset Registry and cannot identify the sourcing node/property, runtime-built or DataRegistry-resolved names yield no edge, and total_dependencies counts raw edges before exclude_engine. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to avoid misreading results.

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?

Purpose and direction are front-loaded, and the alternative-tool routing follows logically before the WARNING caveats. It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information rather than padding.

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?

For a filtered graph-query tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the return shape (dependencies, dependencies_count, total_dependencies, results_truncated, etc.) and explains how to interpret the counts. Combined with the routing guidance and limitation warnings, nothing needed to call or interpret it 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 the schema already documents asset_name, max_results, exclude_engine and dependency_type with their ranges and defaults. The description's prose reinforces directionality but adds no new parameter syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema states, 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 specific verb and resource with scope ('List every package an asset DEPENDS ON (its outgoing edges)'), and immediately frames direction with a concrete mental model ('what does this asset drag in with it?'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_asset_dependents / get_asset_referencers, so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Names the exact conditional alternatives: get_asset_dependents / get_asset_referencers for the reverse direction, get_asset_dependencies_recursive for transitive closure, and check_asset_circular_dependency for cycles. It also names find_blueprint_node_references as the tool for node/property-level edges, giving explicit 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