Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_project_assets

Read-only

List asset files in a Unity project directory recursively, excluding .meta files, with optional pattern and limit filtering.

Instructions

Listet Asset-Dateien eines Projekts (rekursiv, ohne .meta). pattern z.B. '*.cs'.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_project_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYes
subdirNoAssets
patternNo*
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying recursive behavior and exclusion of .meta files. No contradictions, but no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, auth needs) are provided.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without waste. Minor issue: being in German may not suit all agents.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema description and no output schema, the description covers only pattern behavior. It omits essential context about project_path, subdir, limit, and return format, making it incomplete for robust tool use.

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%. The description adds meaning for the 'pattern' parameter with an example, but does not explain 'project_path', 'subdir', or 'limit'. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 verb ('list'), resource ('asset files of a project'), and key details (recursive, exclude .meta, pattern example). The language mix (German) is minor, and while the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_project_asset, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its purpose but lacks context about when not to use it or comparisons to siblings like list_animation_clips or list_project_packages.

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