Skip to main content
Glama

get_object_class

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve an object or actor path to its class name, class path, native flag, and super class — a quick 'what is this?' check in the editor or a live PIE world before deeper inspection.

Instructions

Resolve an object instance and report just its type: class name, class path, is_native and immediate super class. The one-line "what IS this thing?" probe before spending a call on inspect_object or list_object_properties; get_class_hierarchy expands the same answer into the whole ancestor chain. Accepts world, so the same name can be typed in the editor world or in a LIVE PIE world (server vs client) — useful when a class is swapped at runtime — and the response stamps which world answered.

Returns: { object_path: string, class_name: string, class_path: string, is_native: bool, super_class: string, world: string, world_name: string|null, world_package: string|null, world_type: string|null, net_mode: string|null, pie_instance: number }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
worldNoOptional world selector: absent/'editor' (default: the editor/asset instance) | 'pie' (ambiguous: PlayWorld, else the first PIE context) | 'server' (the PIE world with authority) | 'client' | 'pie:N' | 'game' (alias of 'pie'). Anything other than absent/'editor' resolves the object in that live world; an UNRECOGNIZED value is an error naming the worlds that exist, never a silent fallback to another world.
object_pathYesPath or name of the object to inspect. In the editor world: full object path, asset path, CDO/archetype, or a dotted "Actor[.Component[.Subobject]]" whose first segment is the actor's INTERNAL name. In a live world: a fully-qualified PIE path or the same dotted form (first segment matches internal name OR editor label).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: it explains that resolving in a live world can reveal a runtime-swapped class and that the response stamps which world answered. It stops short of detailing error behavior beyond the schema's own note.

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 core purpose, then usage routing, then world semantics, then the return shape. It is dense and a bit long, but every block earns its place; the trailing field list is defensible given there is no output schema.

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?

Since there is no output schema, describing the returned fields (object_path, class_name, class_path, is_native, super_class, world, net_mode, pie_instance) is genuinely necessary, and it is provided. Combined with the world-resolution and sibling-routing notes, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 two parameters are already thoroughly documented in the schema (the world selector's branching semantics and object_path formats). The description restates that `world` selects editor vs LIVE PIE but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Resolve an object instance and report just its type: class name, class path, is_native and immediate super class') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings inspect_object, list_object_properties, and get_class_hierarchy. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus the alternatives.

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?

Frames it as the 'one-line what IS this thing? probe before spending a call on inspect_object or list_object_properties' and notes get_class_hierarchy expands the same answer. It also gives guidance on the world selector (editor vs LIVE PIE, server vs client) and when it matters (class swapped at runtime).

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