Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_animation_clips

Lists animation clip names from imported FBX or .anim assets to retrieve clip names for animator controller creation.

Instructions

Listet die AnimationClip-Namen in einem importierten Asset (FBX/.anim, Job) — z.B. um die Clip-Namen eines Mixamo-/Asset-Pack-Charakters für build_animator_controller zu erfahren. Ergebnis via get_build_result(result_file) -> result.clips.

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>",
      "asset_path": "<asset_path>"
    },
    "name": "list_animation_clips"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYes
asset_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that results are obtained via get_build_result, indicating an async job. It does not disclose permissions or side effects, but given annotations' lack, it adds moderate value.

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 with two sentences covering purpose, example, and result retrieval. It is focused and front-loaded, with 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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage context, and how to retrieve results. It lacks details on error conditions or edge cases, but is adequate for basic 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description gives general context (asset type: FBX/.anim) but does not explain project_path or asset_path specifically. More detail would be beneficial.

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 lists AnimationClip names in an imported asset, with a specific use case (e.g., for build_animator_controller). It differentiates from similar tools like create_animation_clip, though not explicitly.

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 an example use case (getting clip names for an animator controller), implying when it should be used. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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