unity_clear_consoleClear the Unity console buffer and Editor log view to establish a clean baseline before reproducing errors or debugging.
Clear the Unity console buffer (log cache in the bridge + Editor log view).
Use when: you want a clean baseline before reproducing an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by naming the two buffers affected (bridge log cache and Editor log view), telling the agent what is actually lost. It does not say whether the prior logs are recoverable or whether a specific mode is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the usage condition second. Nothing repeats the tool name or title verbatim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, non-returning action with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies what and when. The only minor gap is not stating the result of the call (e.g. that nothing is returned), which is low-stakes for this operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is a closed empty object, so no parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Clear the Unity console buffer') and scopes it further ('log cache in the bridge + Editor log view'), which is more precise than the bare name. It is clearly distinct from the read-side sibling unity_get_console_logs, but never names that sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'Use when' clause gives a concrete triggering scenario: establishing a clean baseline before reproducing an error. That is real context rather than an implied usage. It offers no when-not guidance or named alternative, so it is short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.