Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

find_script_references

Locate C# files that reference a type or class name, helping you identify dependencies and plan refactoring changes.

Instructions

Find C# files that reference a type/class name. Speeds up refactoring.

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": {
      "type_or_class_name": "<type_or_class_name>"
    },
    "name": "find_script_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
type_or_class_nameYese.g. GameManager or MonoBehaviour

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only search over C# files, but says nothing about search scope (whole project vs. loaded assemblies), whether matching is name-based or semantic, or how results are shaped — all material for a refactoring search.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. The second sentence is thin on value but does not obstruct clarity.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should convey return values and safety profile; 'Find C# files' loosely implies a file list, but scope and result shape remain unstated. Adequate to attempt a call, incomplete for confident use.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage and the description's 'type/class name' phrasing matches the schema semantics without adding anything new. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the work.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: find C# files that reference a given type/class name. This is clearly distinguishable from data-fetching siblings, but it does not address the near-identical sibling find_references, so an agent must guess which of the two to pick.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

'Speeds up refactoring' hints at a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no comparison to find_references or find_scripts_by_content, which plausibly overlap. The agent is left to infer the selection rule entirely.

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