Skip to main content
Glama

resolve_asset_by_name

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve an exact asset name or path to every match, returning match count and unambiguous status so you can avoid silently using duplicate or stale assets.

Instructions

Resolve an exact asset name (or path) to EVERY matching asset and report match_count + unambiguous, instead of silently picking the first one the way get_asset_by_name, get_blueprint_parent, get_graph_nodes and the rest of the by-name tools do. Run this FIRST whenever you are about to address an asset by bare name: a project can have hundreds of duplicate names (the same name in a vendored pack and in the game's own folders, plus dated backup copies), and unambiguous:false is the only warning you will get before another tool hands you a stale backup's contents as if they were the real asset. From there, pass the full path everywhere. match_count:0 with success:true is a valid, informative answer -- it means "no asset with this exact name", which is a real measurement of non-existence (unlike search_assets_by_pattern's count:0, which can just mean the pattern had a wildcard in it).

Returns: { asset_name: string, search_root: string, class_filter: string, match_count: int, unambiguous: bool, matches: [{ path, package, class }] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_nameYesEXACT bare asset name or full package/asset path. This is an equality test, not a substring one -- use search_assets_by_pattern when you only know part of the name.
search_rootNoRoot package path for the fallback scan used when asset_name is not an exact package-name hit; defaults to "/Game", so an asset under /Engine or a plugin mount needs its root passed here explicitly
class_filterNoOptional class short name or /Script path (e.g. "Blueprint", "DataTable") to constrain the match; matches subclasses too

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: duplicate names are common, unambiguous:false is the only warning before another tool may return a stale backup, and match_count:0 with success:true is a valid non-existence measurement. It also discloses the exact return shape.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and the when-to-use rule before the detailed duplicate-name rationale. It is slightly longer than necessary, with some repeated emphasis on the risk of silently picking the first match, but every sentence remains informative and earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies a complete Returns block covering match_count, unambiguous, and the matches array. For a 3-parameter read-only resolution tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, edge-case semantics, and return shape thoroughly.

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, search_root, and class_filter in detail. The description reinforces exact-name and full-path usage, but it does not add parameter-specific syntax or defaults 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: resolve an exact asset name or path to every matching asset, reporting match_count and unambiguous. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_asset_by_name, get_blueprint_parent, get_graph_nodes, and the rest of the by-name tools, so an agent can route correctly without opening 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: run this FIRST whenever about to address an asset by bare name, and then pass the full path everywhere. It names the alternatives (the by-name tools and search_assets_by_pattern) and explains the different condition for using search_assets_by_pattern instead.

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