Extract all exports and properties from a game asset to understand its structure for modding. Control nesting depth with the max_depth parameter.
Read all exports and properties from an asset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_depth | No | Max property nesting depth (default 4) | |
| asset_path | Yes | Asset path (e.g. /Game/Maps/MainLevel) |
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. 'Read' implies read-only, but the description does not state that there are no side effects, nor does it mention authentication needs, size/performance limits, or anything about the returned data beyond 'exports and properties'.
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 wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity means it leaves behavioral and routing details unaddressed.
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 simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description states what is read but omits when to prefer it over closely related siblings and gives no sense of the return structure. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% with only 2 parameters (asset_path and max_depth), so the schema already documents both fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (read) and resource (asset) plus the scope ('all exports and properties'), which hints at a difference from read_asset_export. However, it never names or explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_asset_export, read_blueprint, or list_assets.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this instead of read_asset_export or read_blueprint for a given asset type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.