Resolves a full Unreal Engine object path to its primary asset ID and reports whether the path is valid. Use it to map asset references to IDs for asset management workflows.
Get the primary asset ID for a given object path.
Returns: { object_path, primary_asset_id, is_valid }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_path | Yes | Full object path (e.g. /Game/MyAsset.MyAsset) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (object_path, primary_asset_id, is_valid), which is useful context absent an output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior for malformed paths, path format requirements, or whether lookup is case-sensitive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences: the action is front-loaded and the return contract is condensed into a single inline object listing. Nothing is padded or redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, which is the main missing piece. It is incomplete only in that it omits field types and the semantics of a false is_valid result, which the agent may want when calling it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its format with a concrete example (/Game/MyAsset.MyAsset). The description repeats 'given object path' without adding syntax, normalization, or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (get) and resource (primary asset ID) qualified by the input source (object path), which is enough to separate it from siblings like get_primary_asset_id or get_primary_asset_ids_by_type. It does not explicitly name those siblings or explain the distinction, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than get_primary_asset_id, get_primary_asset_ids_by_type, or resolve_asset_by_name, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.