Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

find_references

Find all assets that reference a specific asset by providing its path or GUID. Useful for tracking dependencies in Unity projects.

Instructions

Find all assets (scenes, prefabs, materials, etc.) that reference the given asset. Pass asset path (e.g. Assets/Texture.png) or GUID.

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": {
      "asset_path_or_guid": "<asset_path_or_guid>"
    },
    "name": "find_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_path_or_guidYesAsset path relative to project (e.g. Assets/My.asset) or 32-char GUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.2
  2. Removedv1.5.1
  3. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, required permissions, or behavior when asset is not found. Only the core action is described.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Efficient and to the point.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and input format. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, which are needed given no output schema or annotations. Adequate but with gaps.

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 100% with a clear parameter description. The description adds an example path and GUID format, providing marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 finds all assets referencing a given asset, with specific verb 'Find' and resource 'assets'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_broken_asset_refs' and 'search_assets_by_name' by focusing on references.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides input format (path or GUID) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_broken_asset_refs' or 'search_assets_by_name'. No explicit when-not or conditions are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools