Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

write_script

Writes C# scripts into the Unity project for game logic. Overwrites existing files with automatic backup and supports component attachment via build_scene.

Instructions

Schreibt ein C#-Skript (MonoBehaviour etc.) ins Projekt, z.B. rel_path='Assets/Scripts/PlayerController.cs'. Überschreibt mit Backup. Path-Sandbox aktiv. Kernbaustein für Game-Logik; danach via build_scene als Komponente per Klassenname anhängbar.

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>",
      "rel_path": "<rel_path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYes
rel_pathYes
contentYes

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?

The description discloses overwrite behavior with backup and path sandbox, adding context beyond annotations. There is a mild contradiction with destructiveHint being false despite mentioning overwriting, but the backup mitigates it.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 action, backup, sandbox, and post-usage linkage to build_scene, but lacks details on error handling, success/failure signals, and content constraints.

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 should detail all parameters. It explains rel_path with an example but does not clarify project_path or content, 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 writes a C# script into the project, with an example path, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_text_asset.

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 indicates the tool is a core building block for game logic and that the script can later be attached via build_scene, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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