Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_project_package

Destructive

Remove a package from a Unity project's manifest.json, creating a backup. Requires explicit confirmation to proceed.

Instructions

Entfernt ein Paket aus Packages/manifest.json (Backup wird erstellt). 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": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "remove_project_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYes
nameYes
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that a backup is created and that confirm=true is needed, providing useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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, no fluff. It front-loads the action, adds backup info, then the required condition. Every part is necessary and concise.

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?

The core behavior (removing package, backup, confirmation) is covered, but the description lacks parameter explanations and potential side effects beyond backup. For a destructive tool with no output schema, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains the confirm parameter (confirm=true required). It does not describe project_path or name, leaving their roles ambiguous for an AI agent.

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 action (removes a package) and the specific resource (Packages/manifest.json). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_project_package by specifying removal and noting backup creation.

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 explicitly states that confirm=true is required, guiding the agent on a necessary parameter. It implies destructive nature (backup created) but does not explicitly list contexts where this tool should be avoided.

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