Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_assembly_for_path

Retrieve the assembly (.asmdef name and path) for a given asset path (script or folder). Helps identify which assembly contains the asset in a Unity project.

Instructions

Get the assembly (asmdef name and path) that contains the given asset path (script or folder).

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": "<asset_path>"
    },
    "name": "get_assembly_for_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_pathYese.g. Assets/Scripts/Player.cs or Assets/Scripts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the output includes 'asmdef name and path' but lacks details on return format, error handling, or cases where asset is not in any assembly.

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?

Single concise sentence front-loaded with verb and resource. No redundant information, but could optionally mention output format for completeness.

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?

No output schema exists, leaving the return format unspecified. The description is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks detail on what exactly is returned (string, object) and edge cases.

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 example in the description. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 gets the assembly (asmdef name and path) for a given asset path. The verb 'Get' and resource are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings which list assemblies generically or search by content.

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?

Usage is implied but not stated explicitly. No alternatives are mentioned, but the tool's unique purpose is clear given the sibling list.

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