Read a specific named export from a game asset file, returning its structured data for inspection or modification during modding workflows.
Read a specific named export from an asset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_depth | No | Max depth (default 5) | |
| asset_path | Yes | Asset path | |
| export_name | Yes | Export name to read |
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. Beyond the verb 'Read' implying a safe, non-destructive operation, it discloses nothing about permissions, return format, or how max_depth affects the result.
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 efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally tight.
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?
The tool is simple (3 params, no nested objects, no output schema), and the schema fully documents parameters, so the description is adequate. But with no annotations it leaves the read-only/safety profile and depth behavior unexplained.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents for asset_path, export_name, and max_depth.
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 states a specific verb (Read) and resource (a named export from an asset), which is clear enough to distinguish from generic siblings like list_assets or read_asset. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with close siblings such as list_exports or read_asset, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. An agent must guess whether to call read_asset_export versus read_asset, list_exports, or read_blueprint based on the one-line summary alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.