Initialize Unity modding by loading a .NET DLL for analysis, resolving dependencies from an optional Managed directory. Required before inspecting or patching Unity assemblies.
Load a .NET assembly (DLL) for analysis. Must be called before other Unity tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assembly_path | Yes | Full path to the .NET DLL file | |
| managed_directory | No | Optional: path to the Managed directory for dependency resolution |
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. It usefully discloses a stateful ordering constraint (a prerequisite call), but says nothing about what happens on re-load, whether loaded state persists across calls, dependency-failure behavior, or permissions. This is meaningful context but far from complete for a mutation/state-establishing tool.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the ordering constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it only covers purpose plus the prerequisite ordering. Error cases, state persistence, and what a successful load returns are left unspecified.
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 both assembly_path and managed_directory are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, path-resolution, or dependency guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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 concrete verb and resource ('Load a .NET assembly (DLL) for analysis'), which is immediately actionable and distinguishable from read-only siblings like analyze_dll_structure. It does not, however, contrast itself against the other loaders in the sibling list (e.g., load_game, jar_open) to clarify which 'load' applies.
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?
'Must be called before other Unity tools' is an explicit prerequisite that tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It stops short of stating any exclusion or alternative (e.g., what to do if the assembly is already loaded or if this is the wrong loader for the target engine).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.