Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_recent_projects

Read-only

Lists recent Unity projects from the hub, sorted by date, for organized project management and quick access.

Instructions

Listet die im Hub bekannten Projekte (aus projects-v1.json), nach Datum sortiert.

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": "list_recent_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the data source (projects-v1.json) and sorting behavior, adding value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). No contradictions. However, it does not describe the return format or scope of 'projects'.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no filler. 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?

Lacks details about what fields are returned (e.g., project name, ID, date). Given no output schema, the description could be more complete regarding return value structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description is adequate.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'projects', the data source 'projects-v1.json', and the ordering 'by date'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_project_assets' or 'list_backups'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving a sorted list of projects from the hub, but lacks alternatives or exclusions.

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