unreal-engine-mcp

by harn3ss

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

list_assets

List asset object paths under a content directory, with filters for class name, recursion, and result limit.

Instructions

List asset object paths under a content path.

class_filter keeps only assets whose class name contains the filter (e.g. 'StaticMesh', 'Material', 'Texture').

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	No	/Game
`recursive`	No
`class_filter`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool lists paths and explains the class_filter parameter. However, it does not mention recursion behavior (though default is in schema), limit effects, or whether paths are relative/absolute. Basic transparency exists but lacks detail.

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?

The description is very concise—two lines—and front-loads the main purpose. The second line uses a code-like format for the class_filter example. It is efficient, though adding brief descriptions for other parameters would be beneficial.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 4 parameters and an output schema, the description omits details like path format, recursion behavior, limit meaning, and return format (though output schema covers returns). For a tool with no annotations, more completeness is needed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all 4 parameters. It only describes class_filter with an example. Parameters path, recursive, and limit are not covered, leaving their meaning and defaults undocumented.

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 clearly states 'List asset object paths under a content path', which identifies the verb and resource. It also mentions the class_filter parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings like list_actors, though the context of 'asset' vs 'actor' makes it somewhat distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for listing assets under a path, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like asset_exists or asset_info. The absence of when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings limits clarity.

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