Unity MCP Claude Code

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

run_editor_method

Destructive

Execute any static Editor method in headless mode using -executeMethod. Automate builds, asset generation, or project-specific tasks by passing method name and optional arguments.

Instructions

Führt eine BELIEBIGE statische Editor-Methode headless aus (-executeMethod), als Job. Mächtig und potenziell riskant (führt projektinternen Code aus) — confirm=true nötig. method als 'Namespace.Klasse.Methode'. extra_args werden unverändert angehängt.

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>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "run_editor_method"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_path`	Yes
`method`	Yes
`extra_args`	No
`use_quit`	No
`accept_apiupdate`	No
`version`	No
`confirm`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it runs project-internal code and requires confirmation, enhancing transparency beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, zero fluff, front-loaded with core action. Every sentence adds value: action, risk/caution, parameter format.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and high complexity (arbitrary method execution), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of project_path, boolean flags, error cases, and return behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 only explains 'method' format as 'Namespace.Klasse.Methode' and that 'extra_args' are appended unchanged. Other 5 parameters (project_path, use_quit, accept_apiupdate, version, confirm) are not described, leaving agents without needed semantics.

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 executes ANY static editor method headless as a job. It uses specific verb 'führt aus' (executes) and resource 'statische Editor-Methode'. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting generic execution and risk.

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 requires 'confirm=true' for safety, implying when to use with caution. However, it doesn't state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the sibling context and risk warning imply exclusivity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server