Lists assets under a content path, optionally recursive and limited, enabling MCP clients to browse vanilla data or mod files before editing and packaging.
List assets under a content path, such as /Game/Blueprints/Items or /MyMod.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| recursive | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about the recursive=true default (whether it descends into subfolders), the 500-result limit, truncation/pagination behavior, or what happens for a nonexistent path. For a tool whose defaults silently change result scope, that is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the examples are the highest-value information to lead with. It is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description needs to explain result shape and the effect of recursive/limit. It covers only the path input, leaving an agent unable to predict what a default call returns.
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 0% across three parameters; the description only clarifies the meaning and format of `path` through examples. The `limit` and `recursive` parameters — the ones that most affect output — get no explanation at all, so the compensation is partial at best.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("List assets") and gives two concrete path examples (/Game/Blueprints/Items, /MyMod), which makes the operation unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_assets, so the agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.
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 statement of when to prefer this over search_assets, list_datatables, or read_asset, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word "List".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.