UE5-MCP-Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ue5_list_assets

Lists assets from a specified directory in Unreal Engine's Content Browser. Supports recursive search and accepts paths like '/Game' or '/Engine'.

Instructions

Lists assets in a Content Browser directory. Use '/Game' for project assets, '/Engine' for engine assets.

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": {
      "directoryPath": "<directoryPath>"
    },
    "name": "ue5_list_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`directoryPath`	Yes	The content directory path (e.g., '/Game', '/Game/StarterContent/Props').
`recursive`	No	Whether to search subdirectories. Default: true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It states the tool lists assets, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose details like whether results are paginated, or if it returns full asset metadata. The behavior is straightforward but could be richer.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and resource; the second provides crucial path guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and a clear domain (UE5 asset listing), the description covers the essentials. It could mention return format but is adequate for agent selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining path conventions ('/Game' vs '/Engine') and implying project vs engine scope, going beyond the schema's example.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Lists' and resource 'assets in a Content Browser directory'. It provides specific path examples ('/Game' for project, '/Engine' for engine), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ue5_delete_asset or ue5_spawn_actor.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly guides the user on which path to use for project vs engine assets ('Use '/Game' for project assets, '/Engine' for engine assets'). While it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, the guidance is clear for the tool's purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.