Skip to main content
Glama

validate_assets_in_path

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run enabled editor data validators on every asset under a content path, recursively, and report valid, invalid, and unvalidated assets, errors, and warnings without saving changes.

Instructions

Run the enabled editor data validators (Script use case, as validate_asset does) on every asset under a content path, recursively by default, up to max_results assets; truncated tells when more were found. Loads each asset but changes and saves nothing. Per asset: validation_result (Valid, Invalid or NotValidated), is_valid (NotValidated counts as valid), errors and warnings; totals in num_valid, num_invalid and num_not_validated. A path with no assets returns zero counts, not an error. Use validate_asset for one asset, list_validators to see which validators run.

Returns: { path: string, recursive: bool, num_assets: number, num_valid: number, num_invalid: number, num_not_validated: number, total_found: number, truncated: bool, results: [{ asset_path: string, asset_name: string, asset_class: string, validation_result: string, is_valid: bool, error_count: number, warning_count: number, errors: [string], warnings: [string] }] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoPackage path to scan, e.g. "/Game/MyGame".
recursiveNoWhether to scan sub-paths (optional, default true)
asset_pathNoAlias of `path` (same value, same meaning). Accepted because sibling tools spell this parameter differently; prefer `path`.
max_resultsNoMaximum number of assets to validate (optional, default 1000, valid 1-100000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds genuine value by confirming 'Loads each asset but changes and saves nothing', explaining that 'truncated tells when more were found', and noting the empty-path edge case returns zero counts rather than an error. It does not mention performance cost of loading every asset, which would have pushed this higher.

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 action and scope, then behavior, then routing, then the return shape; each sentence is informative. The inline return-shape dump is somewhat verbose, though defensible since no output schema exists.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description carries the full return contract (field names, validation_result enum values, is_valid semantics, totals, truncation) and also covers edge cases and sibling routing. 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.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the recursive default and how max_results interacts with the truncated flag. The path/asset_path aliasing is left to the schema, keeping this short of a 5.

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 ('Run the enabled editor data validators ... on every asset under a content path, recursively by default') and immediately scopes it against sibling tools by naming validate_asset and list_validators. An agent can distinguish this batch validator from the single-asset variant without opening a 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 routes the agent: 'Use validate_asset for one asset, list_validators to see which validators run.' It also clarifies the default recursion behavior and the max_results cap, so both when-to-use and when-to-prefer-a-sibling are covered.

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