Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

build_player

Build a Unity player for the specified target platform as a background job. Provide project path, build target, and output path; optionally include scenes and development mode. Confirmation required.

Instructions

Baut einen Player (BuildPipeline.BuildPlayer via injiziertem C#) als Hintergrund-Job. build_target z.B.: win64, StandaloneWindows64, android, webgl, ios, linux64, osxuniversal. scenes optional (sonst aktivierte Build-Settings-Szenen). Ergebnis nach Jobende aus result_file lesen (get_build_result). confirm=true nötig.

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": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>",
      "build_target": "<build_target>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "build_player"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYes
build_targetYes
output_pathYes
scenesNo
developmentNo
versionNo
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it's a background job, requires confirmation (confirm=true), and the result is read from a file. It also mentions the underlying method (BuildPipeline.BuildPlayer via injected C#). No contradictions.

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 concise at three sentences in German, front-loading the main action and key parameters. It could be more structured, but it is not verbose or wasteful.

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 7 parameters, the description covers the overall flow (background job, result file) but misses full parameter details and explicit output format. The reference to get_build_result helps, but the tool is complex and the description is adequate yet incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains build_target with examples, scenes as optional, and highlights confirm=true as necessary. However, it does not describe project_path, output_path, development, or version, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 states the tool builds a player as a background job using BuildPipeline.BuildPlayer, which is clear. It gives examples of build_target values. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling build tools like build_scene or build_animator_controller, though the resource is 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 provides usage context: examples for build_target, optional scenes, and the need for confirm=true and reading the result file via get_build_result. It does not include explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives.

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