wwise-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wwise_unity_check

Cross-checks Unity C# code against Wwise events to identify missing or unused events, ensuring consistency between code and Wwise project.

Instructions

Cross-check Unity C# event usage against Wwise. Scans .cs files under unity_path for PostEvent("X") string literals and diffs against actual Wwise events: reports events referenced in code but missing in Wwise, and Wwise events never referenced in code. (String-literal calls only; enum IDs not detected.)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "unity_path": "<unity_path>"
    },
    "name": "wwise_unity_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`unity_path`	Yes
`max_findings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the scanning behavior (PostEvent string literals under unity_path), the comparison against Wwise events, and the two types of reports generated. The limitation about enum IDs is also noted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, each sentence adds essential information with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently covers scope, method, and limitations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (scanning, diffing, reporting) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool produces: two types of reports. It does not detail the output format, but the core behavioral output is clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It implicitly describes 'unity_path' as the directory to scan, but does not explain 'max_findings' at all. This partial coverage gives some value beyond the schema but is incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool cross-checks Unity C# event usage against Wwise events, using specific verbs like 'Cross-check' and 'Scans'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the code-Wwise discrepancy check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool (to find discrepancies) and includes a key limitation: 'String-literal calls only; enum IDs not detected.' This helps an agent decide whether the tool is applicable, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.