Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

unregister_project_from_hub

Destructive

Remove a project from the Unity Hub list without deleting project files. Requires confirmation to proceed.

Instructions

Entfernt ein Projekt aus der Hub-Liste (löscht NICHT die Projektdateien). 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": "unregister_project_from_hub"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYes
force_hub_runningNo
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context by clarifying that files are NOT deleted, which alleviates concern over the destructive hint. It also highlights the confirm parameter requirement.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action, key exception, and a usage requirement.

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 description covers the main purpose and clarifies no file deletion, but it omits details about optional parameters, behavior when hub is not running, and return values. Given the tool's simplicity, some gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that 'confirm' must be true but fails to describe 'project_path' or 'force_hub_running', leaving their semantics unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool removes a project from the hub list and explicitly notes it does not delete project files, which distinguishes its purpose from deletion. However, it could also contrast with the sibling 'register_project_in_hub' to clarify the inverse operation.

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?

The description mentions that 'confirm=true' is necessary, providing a specific usage requirement. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'register_project_in_hub' or other deletion tools.

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