Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Universal Game Modder

Universal Game Modder

by doritoman90000
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

read_asset_export

Read a specific named export from a game asset file, returning its structured data for inspection or modification during modding workflows.

Instructions

Read a specific named export from an asset.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "asset_path": "<asset_path>",
      "export_name": "<export_name>"
    },
    "name": "read_asset_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_depthNoMax depth (default 5)
asset_pathYesAsset path
export_nameYesExport name to read

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools