Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

detect_errors_in_log

Read-only

Scans Unity logs for errors and exceptions, supporting editor, hub, or job sources with configurable tail lines.

Instructions

Scannt ein Log auf Fehler/Exceptions. source: 'editor' | 'hub' | 'job' (mit job_id).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "detect_errors_in_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNoeditor
job_idNo
tail_linesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool scans for errors/exceptions, which is consistent and adds context about the source options. It does not contradict annotations and provides moderate additional behavioral context.

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 sentence with a brief note on sources, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers the core behavior and source options but lacks explanation of the return value and the tail_lines parameter. Given no output schema, this is a gap, but the essential use case is clear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the source values and that job_id is used with source 'job'. However, it does not explain the tail_lines parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 scans logs for errors/exceptions from three specified sources (editor, hub, job). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_editor_log which read the full raw log.

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 lists the three source options, providing clear context on when to use each via the source parameter. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide direct alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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