unity_sceneCreate, open, save, and inspect scenes. Retrieve active scene, hierarchy, and build settings with direct editor actions.
Creates, opens, saves, and inspects scenes. Supported actions: ensure_scene_open, ensure_scene_saved, create, load, save, get_hierarchy, get_active, get_build_settings. Additional action-specific parameters are passed through unchanged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that multiple actions exist and that extra parameters pass through unchanged, but it does not disclose specifics like overwriting unsaved changes or side effects on the project. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and then provides the complete action list plus a crucial note about extra parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.
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?
Despite a clear overview, the tool is a multi-action dispatcher with no per-action parameter documentation, no output schema, and no side-effect details. Agents can understand what the tool does but not reliably execute actions that require action-specific arguments, making the description incomplete for real 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?
The schema only documents the action enum, and the description essentially repeats those enum values. It mentions that action-specific parameters are passed through unchanged, but it does not explain what those parameters are, which actions require them, or their formats. With 0% schema description coverage, this leaves agents guessing on how to correctly call most actions.
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 tool's scope with specific verbs ('Creates, opens, saves, and inspects scenes') and then enumerates every supported action. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on shaders, assets, packages, or UI elements.
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 when to use the tool: whenever a scene-related operation such as opening, saving, loading, or inspecting is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.