Unity API Communicator MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a listing operation, which implies read-only behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the basic operation.

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 key action ('List all currently loaded scenes') and specifies attributes without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized 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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output format (listing scenes with specific attributes). However, as a read-only tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return structure, making it minimally complete but with gaps in transparency.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly handles the lack of parameters without adding unnecessary information.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('currently loaded scenes') with specific attributes (name, path, dirty state, active status). It distinguishes from siblings like scene_active, scene_close, scene_create, scene_open, scene_save, and scene_setactive by focusing on listing loaded scenes rather than modifying or managing 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving information about loaded scenes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scene_active (which might check or set active status) or scene_list (if it existed). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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