Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_audio_loudness_risk

Assesses audio mix loudness risks by comparing PCM and Vorbis balance, streaming versus compressed-in-memory playback, and music-length candidates.

Instructions

Audio mix risk: PCM vs Vorbis balance, streaming vs compressed-in-memory, music-length candidates.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_audio_loudness_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the analysis dimensions (PCM vs Vorbis, streaming vs in-memory, music-length candidates), which is genuine signal beyond the schema, but says nothing about whether this is a read-only analysis, what 'risk' means, severity levels, thresholds, or the shape of the result.

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?

A single compact line with no filler, and the risk topic is front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a sentence and the phrase 'music-length candidates' is opaque, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lists what is evaluated but never explains what the returned risk report looks like or what would make an agent act on it. Adequate for selection, thin for interpretation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description is a noun-phrase fragment ('Audio mix risk: PCM vs Vorbis balance, streaming vs compressed-in-memory, music-length candidates') rather than a verb+resource statement, but the specifics do tell an agent this tool analyzes audio compression/loudness tradeoffs, which separates it from plain readers like get_audio_settings or list_audio_clips. The core action—computing or reporting a risk assessment—must be inferred from the name, not the text.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus get_audio_settings or the other audio siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. An agent must guess whether this is a diagnostic to run before shipping a build or a general settings check.

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