Retrieve the full inheritance chain of an Unreal Blueprint class by asset path, revealing its parent classes up to a set depth for modding and patch analysis.
Get inheritance chain for a Blueprint class.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_path | Yes | Blueprint asset path | |
| max_levels | No | Max inheritance levels (default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing states whether the walk is bounded, whether it errors on non-Blueprint assets, or how the chain is represented; only the schema's max_levels hint suggests truncation behavior.
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. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a trivially small parameter set, the description should at least convey what the returned chain contains and how depth limiting affects it. What is present is technically accurate but too thin to guide correct invocation confidently.
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%, so both asset_path and max_levels (with its default of 10) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or naming detail beyond that, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Get inheritance chain for a Blueprint class' — so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_inheritance_tree, leaving the agent to guess which of the two inheritance tools to pick.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical sibling get_inheritance_tree. The agent receives no criteria for choosing this tool over that one or over inspect_type/decompile_type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.