Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_project_asset

Destructive

Removes a Unity project asset file and its .meta file, creating a backup first. Requires explicit confirmation for safety.

Instructions

Löscht eine Asset-Datei (+ .meta) nach Backup. 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>",
      "rel_path": "<rel_path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_project_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYes
rel_pathYes
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the tool creates a backup before deletion and demands explicit confirmation. This goes beyond the annotation to inform the agent of safe usage.

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 extremely concise (two brief sentences) with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core action and follows with the key condition. Every word is necessary.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the backup and confirmation requirement, but does not describe the return value or provide parameter details, which would be helpful for an agent.

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%, meaning the schema lacks descriptions for all three parameters. The description only mentions the 'confirm' parameter and its requirement, leaving 'project_path' and 'rel_path' unexplained beyond their names. This does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 deletes an asset file along with its .meta file after performing a backup. It specifies the verb 'Löscht' (deletes) and the resource 'Asset-Datei (+ .meta)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list or restore.

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 requires 'confirm=true', indicating the condition under which the tool should be invoked. It does not provide when-to-use/not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the requirement is clear and actionable.

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