Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_test_results

Read-only

Parse NUnit3 test result XML to retrieve pass/fail counts and failure details.

Instructions

Parst eine NUnit3-Ergebnis-XML (von run_tests) und liefert Pass/Fail-Zahlen + Fehlerdetails.

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": {
      "results_xml": "<results_xml>"
    },
    "name": "get_test_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
results_xmlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the input source (from run_tests) and the output structure (pass/fail numbers and error details). However, it does not disclose error handling or other traits, and the annotations already indicate read-only behavior.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently covers the tool's function and expected output. It could be more explicit about the output format, but it is adequate for the agent to understand its use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds context that results_xml is an NUnit3 XML from run_tests, but does not detail format, encoding, or examples. This provides minimal but non-trivial semantic value.

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 tool parses NUnit3 XML results and provides pass/fail numbers and error details. The verb 'parst' specifies the action, and the resource is identified. However, the description is in German, which may pose challenges for English-speaking agents, slightly reducing clarity.

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 the tool should be used after run_tests, as it specifically mentions input from that sibling tool. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided, but the context is clear enough for basic usage.

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