AccelByte Unity MCP Server

Official

by AccelByte

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, whether in the SDK setup, UI generation pipeline, or example components. For instance, unity_ui_preflight and unity_ui_scene_preflight are differentiated by scope (general UI vs scene-specific readiness).
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools use snake_case with a 'unity_' or 'unity_ui_' prefix, but a few like 'get_accelbyte_unity_how_to' and 'describe_unity_example_components' deviate from the predominant noun-first pattern, introducing minor inconsistency.
Tool Count4/5
23 tools is on the higher side, but each tool serves a specific need in a complex domain (SDK management, UI generation, knowledge base). While the set could potentially be trimmed, the count is still reasonable for the breadth of functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full workflow: SDK setup (install, repair, recompile), knowledge base, example components, and an extensive UI generation pipeline (recipe selection, resolution, validation, generation, inspection, patching, scene setup). No obvious gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.
Average 3.5/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states purpose, no disclosure of mutability, error behavior, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, but under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters; conciseness comes at cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral context, the description is far from complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only projectPath has description). Description adds no parameter details, leaving the other three parameters completely undocumented in terms of meaning.
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?
Clearly states it inspects generated Unity UI prefabs for specific aspects (layout, backing-class, etc.). However, does not differentiate from sibling tools like unity_ui_kit_inspect.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose side effects such as file creation, overwrite behavior, or required environment (e.g., Unity editor). The single verb 'Generate' is insufficient for understanding operational impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it omits critical details that could be added without significant length increase. It achieves brevity at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does in detail, parameter roles, or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters. Only one parameter ('projectPath') has a schema description (coverage 17%), leaving the rest undocumented. The description should compensate but does not.
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 the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'project-owned reusable UI component prefabs' with a specific location. It distinguishes the tool's focus from siblings like 'unity_ui_generate' but lacks explicit differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unity_ui_generate' or 'unity_ui_kit_build'. Absence of prerequisites or context (e.g., Unity editor state) limits usability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'discover' and 'approve' but doesn't clarify side effects, whether state changes, or required permissions. Ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, concise but overly terse. Lacks important details. Front-loaded with main action but not informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. Missing explanation of fingerprint, roleOverrides, clearRoleOverrides, and return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds no information about parameters approve, roleOverrides, clearRoleOverrides. Schema coverage is only 25% (projectPath described), and description fails to compensate.
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?
Description specifies verb 'Discover' and resource 'uGUI/TMP project style', with optional approval action. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like unity_ui_generate or unity_ui_validate, though 'fingerprint' is not explained.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, context is missing, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'patch' (implying mutation) and 'narrow property operations,' but does not detail what actions are performed, whether changes are reversible, or any authorization or side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to assess risks or constraints.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope. However, it could be slightly expanded with additional context without sacrificing conciseness.
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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'narrow property operations' entails, how patches are applied, or what the agent should expect after calling the tool. The agent lacks enough context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only projectPath has a description). The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters; it merely repeats their names in the schema. For a 4-parameter tool with low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 that the tool patches existing generated or package-owned UI prefabs with narrow property operations. It uses a specific verb ('patch') and resource ('UI prefabs'), and the scope ('existing generated or package-owned') distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on generation or inspection.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like unity_ui_generate or unity_ui_resolve. The description implies it is for applying targeted changes to prefabs, but lacks context about prerequisites, fallback tools, or scenarios where patching is preferred over other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says 'Report'. It does not disclose whether this is read-only, what 'approved' means, any side effects, authentication needs, or how results are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks detail. It could be expanded to include more context without becoming verbose.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and limited parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what candidates are, how to interpret results, or the role of each parameter, making it hard for an AI to use correctly.
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 only 20% (projectPath has a description). The description does not add meaning for the four undocumented parameters (screen, feature, itemView, item_view), leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.
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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and a clear resource 'approved project prefab candidates' for a specific context (generated list or collection rows), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like unity_ui_generate or unity_ui_patch.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The description simply states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists outputs but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Return scene readiness') but becomes a long list of items. It is adequately concise but could be better structured for readability.
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?
The description lacks details on return format, interpretation of readiness, prerequisites, or how the tool interacts with other UI tools. Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.
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 50% (2 out of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving parameters like bridgeUrl and editorPath unexplained.
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 it returns scene readiness for generated Unity UI and lists specific outputs (Input System mode, EventSystem module compatibility, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like unity_ui_preflight which may be more general.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., unity_ui_preflight). The description only states what it does, not the context of use or when to avoid it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes that validation occurs 'without opening Unity,' implying a non-interactive operation, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or required permissions. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and falls short.
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 sentence efficiently conveys the purpose without fluff, though a brief sentence on usage or behavior could be added without harming conciseness.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal for a validation tool. It does not explain what 'validate' entails (e.g., syntax, connectivity), leaving gaps for the AI agent.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both specPath and projectPath, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool validates a shared AGS Unity UI recipe, with the specific constraint 'without opening Unity,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like unity_ui_generate or unity_ui_inspect_generated_layout.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives like unity_ui_preflight or unity_ui_scene_preflight, and no prerequisites or usage context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'without modifying assets', indicating non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose other traits such as how results are returned, error handling, or required permissions.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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 description covers the core function but is minimal given no output schema and no annotations. It omits return values, error behavior, and relationship to other tools, though it is functional for a simple inspection tool.
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 coverage is 50% with only 'projectPath' described. The description adds no additional meaning to either parameter; 'kit' remains undescribed despite having a default. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 action (inspect), resource (package-owned AGS uGUI kit prefabs), and context (against component specs, without modifying assets). It distinguishes from siblings like 'unity_ui_generate' (which creates) and 'unity_ui_validate' (which likely validates differently).
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'unity_ui_validate' or 'unity_ui_verify_backing_class'. It conveys the tool's purpose but lacks context for selection among similar siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behaviors such as creating/reusing objects, instantiating panels, attaching scripts, activating only initialPanel, and saving the scene. However, it does not explicitly state whether it overwrites existing objects or if the operation is reversible. Overall, it provides moderate transparency.
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 a single paragraph that efficiently summarizes the tool's actions without verbosity. It is front-loaded with the overall purpose and each sentence provides specific detail. Minor improvement could be splitting into summary and details, but it remains concise.
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 complexity (9 parameters, 3 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow: scene setup, panel instantiation, optional script attachment, and scene saving. It does not explain return values or all parameters in depth, but it provides a solid overview. Completeness is above average.
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 67%. The description does not add meaning beyond parameter names; it only lists actions. Some parameters (mode, bridgeUrl, editorPath) lack descriptions in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the gaps, so score is baseline 3.
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 tool's purpose: 'Set up and validate a Unity scene for generated UI through the live editor bridge.' It lists specific actions (creates/reuses Canvas, EventSystem, instantiates panels, attaches MenuManager, assigns fields, activates only initialPanel, saves scene), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like unity_ui_generate or unity_ui_validate.
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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context like 'use after generating UI' or 'use instead of X'. Sibling tools include many UI-related actions, but no guidance on when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists outputs but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or limitations. For a read-only tool, it's adequate but lacks depth.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, efficiently communicates purpose with zero redundancy.
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?
Low complexity tool with 2 params and no output schema. Description mentions output fields but not structure or return format. Adequate but missing details for full completeness.
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 has 50% coverage with only projectPath described. Description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only lists outputs. editorPath remains unexplained. Does not compensate for the gap.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Report' and specifies three distinct outputs: expected Unity editor, running status, and UI tools installation info. This differentiates from sibling tools like 'unity_ui_bridge_health'.
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?
Implies use for status checks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools are diverse but no exclusions given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states one behavioral trait (no asset creation), but does not disclose other aspects such as whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects beyond the scope.
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?
The description is a single, 12-word sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary text. It is maximally concise.
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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description does not specify the return value format or any prerequisites. It leaves the agent guessing what the 'prefab spec' looks like and whether the output is returned directly or stored.
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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by specifying that the recipe is an 'AGS recipe' and that the output is a 'Unity uGUI prefab spec', which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 'Resolve' and the resource 'AGS recipe into a Unity uGUI prefab spec', adding the important scope 'without creating assets'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `unity_ui_generate` that likely create assets.
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 when a spec is needed without asset creation, but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, and does not mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it is 'read-only', which is good for non-destructive behavior. It lists the report's contents, providing transparency about what the tool does. However, it does not disclose potential costs, permissions needed, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does a decent job.
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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability for an agent.
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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview of the report contents. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or how the report should be used. It is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 50%, but the tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond what is in the schema. It does not explain 'feature', 'specPath', 'bridgeUrl', or other parameters, leaving agents without guidance on how to use them correctly.
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 tool returns a read-only readiness report for Unity UI generation, listing specific contents like style approval, recipe selection, validation blockers, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unity_ui_style_discover or unity_ui_validate which focus on individual aspects.
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 it should be used before generation to check readiness, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like unity_ui_scene_preflight or other validation tools. No exclusions or best practices are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, require authentication, or have rate limits. Adequate but could be more transparent about side effects.
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: first states action and resource, second lists output fields and provides a usage hint. No redundant information, highly 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?
Lacks details on result ordering/pagination and doesn't explain how 'limit' parameter affects output. However, it clearly describes return structure (class name, URI, feature tags, public methods) and ties to sibling tool, making it mostly sufficient for a search tool.
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 coverage is 67% (feature and projectPath described, limit not). Description only mentions 'feature' implicitly but does not explain 'limit' (controls result count) or 'projectPath' (defines Unity project root). Fails to add value beyond schema for the undocumented parameter.
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?
Description clearly states it searches the bytewars C# source index for classes matching a feature and returns ranked metadata. It specifically mentions output fields and distinguishes from sibling describe_unity_example_components by directing usage of URIs.
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?
Provides a hint to use URIs with describe_unity_example_components, indicating a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings like unity_ui_resolve or unity_ui_kit_inspect, lacking exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the side effect (recompilation) and that it should be polled for completion. However, it omits whether calling during an ongoing compilation is safe or what happens if it fails.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient but could be restructured slightly for clarity (e.g., separating usage and polling advice). No wasted words.
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?
Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage but lacks details on return values, error handling, or parameter roles. The polling hint is helpful, but overall the tool is only partially described.
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?
The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. For parameters like 'changedAssetPaths' and 'classPath', users would benefit from clarity on usage, which is missing.
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 it refreshes AssetDatabase and triggers recompilation via CompilationPipeline.RequestScriptCompilation(). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., unity_ui_bridge_health) by specifying a unique action not performed by others.
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 says to use after writing a C# backing class to import files without switching focus, and advises polling unity_ui_bridge_health.response.isCompiling until false. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context implies this is the dedicated tool for recompilation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a partial spec stub and warns about generic_async behavior. However, it does not specify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires auth/permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output, fulfilling conciseness and structure ideals.
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?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description lacks details on the return format, prerequisites (e.g., AGS setup), and how this tool differs from unity_ui_list_entry_candidates. It provides sufficient but not thorough context.
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?
The schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions; the description adds crucial semantics for the undocumented allowGenericAsync parameter ('pass allowGenericAsync=true only for intentional one-shot async/status panels'). This compensates for the missing schema description, but no added value for the other two.
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 'select', the resource 'best AGS Unity UI recipe', and the outcome 'return a partial spec stub'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like unity_ui_generate (which generates UI) and unity_ui_list_entry_candidates (which lists candidates).
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 provides a usage caveat about allowGenericAsync but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like unity_ui_list_entry_candidates. The context of when not to use it is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes a query operation (read-only) but does not explicitly confirm idempotency or lack of side effects. Given the context, a score of 3 is adequate.
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 that are front-loaded with the core action and return value, followed by a clear usage hint. No redundant information or wasted words.
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?
For a simple query tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input, action, and return content. Missing details on return structure (e.g., format) are minor given the listed content types.
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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description reinforces the topic parameter's purpose but adds minimal additional semantic depth beyond the schema.
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 ('Query') and resource ('AccelByte Unity SDK best-practices knowledge base'), and specifies the return value (SDK guides with C# code templates, best practices, and component names). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_unity_example_components' by focusing on best practices and code templates.
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?
Provides explicit context: 'Use before writing a C# backing class.' This tells when to use it. However, no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, though siblings are available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two operation modes (live editor vs batch), specific refusal triggers, and the ability to override failures. This is transparent for a complex tool, though it omits side effects like file overwriting.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and packs significant detail without fluff. It could be slightly more structured for readability, but it is efficient.
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?
Given no output schema and 9 parameters, the description covers the main action, modes, and refusal conditions but does not mention return values (e.g., success signal or generated prefab path), leaving a gap for the agent to infer behavior.
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 coverage is 44%, so description must compensate. It adds context on refusal conditions linking to override parameters (force, allowWarnings, etc.) but does not explicitly map all parameters like bridgeUrl or editorPath. The added value is moderate but not sufficient to fully bridge the gap.
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 specifies the tool generates a Unity uGUI prefab, distinguishes between live editor and batch modes, and clearly differs from sibling tools like 'unity_ui_kit_build' which targets UI Toolkit.
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 warns about conditions under which the tool refuses (validation warnings, compile errors, unverified classes, verification failures) and mentions overrides, providing clear guidance on when it may fail. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'unity_ui_preflight' for pre-generation validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses force=true, regeneration of existing prefabs, and dual behavior (live editor/batch). Could mention side effects like overwriting prefabs but this is implied. Good transparency overall.
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, no redundancy, front-loaded with main action and scope. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
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?
No output schema, so description should clarify return values or side effects. It assumes agent knows rebuilding outcome. Missing details on error handling, prerequisites beyond 'after C# changes', and what constitutes success. Adequate but not fully complete.
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 coverage is low (33%) with only projectPath described. The description does not explain bridgeUrl or editorPath beyond mentioning 'live editor bridge', which is insufficient for an agent to know their purpose or format. Additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 action 'Rebuild all AGS core kit prefabs' with a specific path and force=true, distinguishing it from sibling tools like unity_ui_generate or unity_ui_patch by focusing on regenerating existing core prefabs after C# changes.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use after plugin C# changes to regenerate existing prefabs', giving a clear trigger. It also explains behavior based on environment (live editor bridge vs batch mode). No explicit alternatives are mentioned but the context from siblings suggests differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that by default it writes only config files and preserves existing config, and that patchManifest is opt-in. Missing details on overwriteConfig and revertibility, but still good.
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?
Single sentence packed with essential information. Front-loaded and no waste.
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?
Given 10 parameters and no output schema, description covers main behavior and key condition (patchManifest) but omits details on other params like overwriteConfig or appId. Could be more complete.
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 coverage is high (80%), so description adds limited value. It only highlights patchManifest behavior, which is partially in schema (default false, preserves existing). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states 'Set up AccelByte Unity SDK config in a Unity project.' It provides a specific verb (set up) and resource (SDK config), and the tool is well-distinguished from its siblings which focus on UI components.
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?
Description gives clear guidance: default writes config files, and patchManifest=true is only for manifest installation. It implies when not to use (e.g., avoid patchManifest unless needed) but does not explicitly name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description states it is a read operation ('Read C# source files') that returns full source text. This is adequate behavioral disclosure for a read-only tool. No side effects are implied.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Read'. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return value. It lacks error handling or edge-case details, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'uris' parameter by specifying it comes from the search tool, which is helpful. It does not add meaning to 'projectPath' beyond the schema.
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 it reads C# source files for bytewars components. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_unity_example_components' by specifying that it returns full C# source text, while the search tool likely returns URIs.
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?
Provides clear usage guidance: 'Pass ‘uris’ from search_unity_example_components.' This indicates a precondition and suggests the tool is meant to be used after searching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses destructive actions: deletes stale folders and removes lock entry, and the refusal behavior with editor open. However, it does not mention potential data loss or that the package must be a git dependency, which would improve transparency.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage context, third details behavior and a constraint. Information is front-loaded and efficiently structured.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers use case, behavior, constraints, and parameter roles. It could mention what happens after repair (e.g., re-launch editor) or offer a note on when not to use it, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value for 'force' with a safety note, but for 'packageName' and 'projectPath' it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description complements without redundancy.
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 action: 'Force a clean re-resolve of a stale UPM git-dependency package.' It specifies the verb (repair/resolve) and the exact resource (package cache). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on UI generation or example components.
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 provides specific error scenarios where the tool should be used: 'packages-lock.json hash mismatch' or 'Failed to rename ... EPERM' error. It also notes a condition: refuses to run with editor open unless force=true. Missing explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description explains the validation purpose but does not disclose potential side effects (likely read-only), error behavior, or output format. While the purpose is clear, behavioral details are minimal.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage order. No redundant information.
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?
The description covers the main purpose and workflow sequence adequately. It does not explain output (e.g., success/failure) or prerequisites beyond sequence, but given the validation context and sibling tools, it is largely sufficient.
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 schema already documents parameters. The description adds context about validation but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool validates that [SerializeField] fields in a C# backing class match cs_bindings from unity_ui_resolve. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unity_ui_resolve and unity_ui_generate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to call 'after writing the C# class and before unity_ui_generate', providing clear workflow ordering and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description covers return values and implies non-destructive operation. Could be more explicit about safety, but adequate for a health check.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and return values, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one optional param, no output schema. Description sufficiently covers purpose, return values, and context. Complete for its complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the lone optional parameter (bridgeUrl). Baseline score applies.
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 tool checks bridge health in the Unity editor, specifies return values (ok, bridge URL, health response including isCompiling), and distinguishes from sibling tool unity_editor_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Lighter than unity_editor_status — use for a quick bridge-only check,' providing clear when-to-use and alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![accelbyte-unity-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AccelByte/accelbyte-unity-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AccelByte/accelbyte-unity-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![accelbyte-unity-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AccelByte/accelbyte-unity-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AccelByte/accelbyte-unity-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AccelByte/accelbyte-unity-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server