Lists all MonoBehaviour components in a specified Unity assembly, with optional name filter and result limit. Use it to inspect scripts before patching.
List all MonoBehaviour components in assembly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 200) | |
| filter | No | Optional name filter | |
| assembly | Yes | Assembly key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little: not the return shape, not pagination/limit behavior (only the schema hints at a default), not whether an invalid assembly key errors or returns empty, and not any performance cost of scanning an entire assembly.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
This is a simple read tool with full parameter coverage, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves key gaps: what a result item looks like, how limit interacts with total results, and when to prefer this over the sibling type/asset listers.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so assembly, filter, and limit are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics (e.g. the format of an assembly key or how filter matching works), so the baseline 3 applies.
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: 'List all MonoBehaviour components in assembly.' An agent knows exactly what kind of data comes back. However, it gives no differentiation from closely related siblings such as list_types or list_scriptableobjects, so the agent cannot tell which lister to pick without opening schemas.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions (e.g. that the assembly must already be loaded), and no mention of alternatives like list_types or list_scriptableobjects. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.