Reads an asset's properties as JSON and returns DataTable rows, so you can inspect vanilla data or modded values before editing or validating.
Read an asset's properties as JSON. DataTables return their rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
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 burden. It does disclose real behavioral information not present in the schema: results come back as JSON, and DataTable assets return rows instead of a property map. It says nothing about error behavior for a bad path, permissions, or whether non-datatable assets return nested structures.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and the DataTable clause earns its place by flagging a non-obvious return-shape exception. It is lean rather than padded, though terseness comes at the cost of the missing path semantics.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the JSON/rows return shape. The unresolved path format and the overlap with read_datatable leave gaps an agent would hit on first use.
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?
The single parameter "path" has 0% schema description coverage, so the description was the only place to explain it, and it does not. It never says whether path is relative to the mod root, includes extension, or accepts a name vs. a filesystem path — the main invocation risk for this tool.
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?
"Read an asset's properties as JSON" gives a specific verb and resource that separates it from list_assets, search_assets and set_properties. However, the appended clause "DataTables return their rows" blurs the boundary with the sibling read_datatable, so the scope is clear but not fully disambiguated.
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 use this tool, when to prefer read_datatable or search_assets, or what preconditions apply. The only guidance is implied by the verb "Read", leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.