Reads a Blueprint asset's class definition, components, and default properties, helping you inspect Unreal game logic before patching or modifying it.
Read Blueprint class definition, components, and default properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_depth | No | Max depth (default 3) | |
| asset_path | Yes | Blueprint asset path |
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 implies a read operation and lists the returned content, but says nothing about permissions, whether the blueprint must be loaded first, side effects, or limitations.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and output content front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter read tool.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what data is returned, which is the important part. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, it leaves gaps around invocation context and constraints.
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_depth are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 (Read) and resource (Blueprint class), and enumerates the returned content (components and default properties). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like read_asset or find_blueprints_of_type.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., asset must be loaded), and no mention of alternative tools. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.