Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

register_project_in_hub

Add an existing project to Unity Hub's recent projects by writing to projects-v1.json. Requires Hub closed and confirm=true.

Instructions

Trägt ein vorhandenes Projekt in die Hub-Recents ein (schreibt projects-v1.json). Hub sollte geschlossen sein (sonst überschreibt er die Änderung). confirm=true nötig.

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": "register_project_in_hub"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYes
force_hub_runningNo
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds that it modifies projects-v1.json and that the Hub should be closed. However, it does not explain the effect of force_hub_running or consequences of running with hub open.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with action, and includes critical conditions without waste.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and basic annotations, the description provides essential context (hub closure, confirm requirement) but omits details on force_hub_running and return behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, and description only clarifies that confirm must be true. The other parameters (project_path, force_hub_running) are not described, leaving ambiguity.

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 registers an existing project into the Hub recents and writes projects-v1.json. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_project or open_project.

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 provides explicit conditions: Hub should be closed and confirm=true is required. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the prerequisite is valuable.

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