Retrieve assets from a loaded game, including file sizes and optional path or type filters, to inspect and locate game resources before modding.
List assets in loaded game with file sizes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 200) | |
| offset | No | Skip first N results (default 0) | |
| path_filter | No | Filter assets by path substring | |
| type_filter | No | Filter by asset type |
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. It does disclose a prerequisite ("in loaded game") and one output characteristic (file sizes), but says nothing about pagination behavior, whether the call is side-effect free, performance cost, or result ordering.
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 short sentence with the scope and the key output detail front-loaded. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.
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 4-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is minimal but not misleading. It omits how filtering/pagination interact and what a result entry looks like beyond file size, leaving real gaps despite the fully documented schema.
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 limit, offset, path_filter, and type_filter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ("List assets") and adds scope ("in loaded game") plus an output detail ("with file sizes"). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like search_assets, read_asset, or list_types.
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 versus search_assets (filtered search) or list_types/list_exports. The only implicit condition is that a game must be loaded, which is not framed as a usage rule. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.