Unity API Communicator MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage, as it doesn't address how the data is returned or any constraints.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get current build settings') and lists key attributes without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of build settings and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists what is retrieved but doesn't explain the return format, data structure, or any behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for the agent to handle the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on what the tool retrieves rather than inputs. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current build settings'), listing key attributes like active platform, enabled scenes, development mode, and player settings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'build_platforms' or 'build_player_settings' by covering multiple aspects, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for retrieving build settings, there's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'build_player_settings' or 'project_info', leaving the agent to infer context.

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