Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
o3de-mcp

o3de-mcp

by nickschuetz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

assign_asset

Assign an asset to a component property in Open 3D Engine by resolving its product path and confirming the value sticks; errors on unknown targets or failed writes.

Instructions

Assign an asset to a component property by resolving the asset path.

asset_path is the product path in the asset catalog (for example objects/thing.fbx.azmodel). The property is read back after setting, and only an assignment that holds is reported as done; an unknown asset, component or property, or a value that does not stick, is returned as an error.

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>",
      "component_type": "<component_type>",
      "property_path": "<property_path>",
      "asset_path": "<asset_path>"
    },
    "name": "assign_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idYes
asset_pathYes
property_pathYes
component_typeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the name: the property is read back after setting, only a persistent assignment is reported as done, and failures (unknown asset/component/property or a value that does not stick) surface as errors. It stops short of naming permission/auth requirements or any failure modes around concurrent edits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the verification/error semantics. The asset_path example is placed exactly where it disambiguates, and no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the read-back/error contract is covered. The gaps are the three undocumented parameters and the absence of any permission or sibling-selection guidance for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema has no descriptions, so the description must compensate — but it only documents asset_path (with a concrete format example). entity_id, component_type, and property_path remain entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — assigning an asset to a component property — and clarifies the mechanism ('by resolving the asset path'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the close sibling set_component_property, so an agent must infer which to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by the asset-specific framing and the error conditions listed (unknown asset/component/property). However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance versus set_component_property or add_component, and no prerequisites are stated.

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