Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

apply_license_file

Apply a downloaded .ulf license file to complete manual Unity activation (step 3). Use this to activate your license after obtaining the file.

Instructions

Wendet eine heruntergeladene .ulf-Lizenzdatei an (manuelle Aktivierung, Schritt 3). confirm=true.

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": {
      "ulf_path": "<ulf_path>"
    },
    "name": "apply_license_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ulf_pathYes
versionNo
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it applies a license file, which is consistent with a write operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as side effects or requirements.

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 very short (one sentence plus fragment) but includes important context (step 3 and confirm=true). However, it could be more structured to clearly separate parameter information from usage context.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more context about preconditions, effects, and error handling. It only mentions it's a step in manual activation, which 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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. Only confirm's default is mentioned (confirm=true) but not explained what it does. ulf_path and version are not described beyond their names, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 applies a downloaded .ulf license file as part of manual activation step 3. This is specific and distinguishes it from other tools, as no other license activation tools exist in the sibling list.

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 specifies it's for manual activation step 3, indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list.

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