Lists Unity asset files in a game's _Data directory to reveal available assets before inspection, searching, or patching.
List Unity asset files in game data directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data_directory | Yes | Path to game _Data directory |
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 implies a read-only listing via 'List', but does not state whether it reads file contents or only enumerates, what granularity of output results, permission/installation requirements, or how it relates to reading assets with read_asset. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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 no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.
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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema this is minimally adequate, but it omits what an 'asset file' encompasses (e.g. .assets files, bundles) and where the tool fits relative to read_asset/list_assets. An agent has enough to attempt the call but not to choose it confidently among siblings.
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% and the single parameter is documented as the path to the game _Data directory. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema already states, 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?
The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (Unity asset files) with a scoping qualifier (in game data directory), so the agent can tell what it does. However, it offers no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as list_assets, search_assets, or read_asset, leaving ambiguity about which listing tool is Unity-specific.
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 versus the many sibling listing/reading tools (list_assets, search_assets, read_asset, decode_assets). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.