Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

restore_backup

Destructive

Restore a backup file to its target path, creating a backup of the current file before overwriting. Requires explicit confirmation to proceed.

Instructions

Stellt eine gesicherte Datei an target_path wieder her (die aktuelle Datei wird vorher erneut gesichert). 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": {
      "backup_file": "<backup_file>",
      "target_path": "<target_path>"
    },
    "name": "restore_backup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backup_fileYes
target_pathYes
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; the description adds that the current file at target_path is backed up again before restoration, a key side effect. It also notes the need for confirm=true, a safety requirement. This supplements the annotations usefully.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence and a parenthetical note. No wasted words, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the absence of output schema and the tool's destructive nature, the description covers the core action, location, prerequisite (confirm), and a side effect. However, it omits details about the backup_file parameter and what happens on success or error.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions target_path and confirm, but does not describe backup_file at all, leaving its meaning unclear. The description partially compensates but misses one parameter.

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: 'restores a backed up file to target_path'. It specifies the resource (backed up file) and includes a notable behavioral detail (current file is backed up again beforehand). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_backups or other file operations. It implies confirm=true is required but does not explain context or prerequisites beyond that.

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