Retrieve Unity PlayerPrefs values from the Windows registry using a game's company and product name, with an optional key filter to narrow results.
Read Unity PlayerPrefs from Windows registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Optional key filter | |
| company_name | Yes | Company name from PlayerSettings | |
| product_name | Yes | Product name from PlayerSettings |
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 burden. It discloses the Windows-registry backing store, which is useful, but says nothing about read-only guarantees, behavior when PlayerPrefs are absent, permissions, or return format for a tool that crosses into OS-level state.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is well structured but so terse that it borders on underspecification rather than being optimally concise.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (key/value pairs?) and what happens on a miss. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps for correctness of invocation.
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 company_name, product_name and the optional key filter are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Read') and resource ('Unity PlayerPrefs'), and adds the storage location (Windows registry). No sibling tool touches PlayerPrefs, so no differentiation is needed, though it also doesn't differentiate itself from generic read tools.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing PlayerSettings values or a valid installed game. The agent is left to 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.