Skip to main content
Glama

get_bridge_status

Check whether the Unity Editor live bridge is enabled based on the configured bridge URL and port. Use it to verify local Editor connectivity before relying on live data.

Instructions

Live Editor bridge status: enabled only when UNITY_MCP_BRIDGE_URL/PORT points at 127.0.0.1. Default disabled.

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_bridge_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real prerequisite: the bridge is only enabled when specific environment variables point at loopback, and it is disabled by default. That is meaningful gating context an agent could not get elsewhere. It stops short of saying the call is side-effect free or how a disabled bridge surfaces (error vs. status value).

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource name and followed immediately by the gating condition and default state. There is no filler and nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it omits what the returned status actually contains beyond binary enabled/disabled. For a trivial no-parameter status tool this is close to adequate, but an agent cannot predict the response shape or how a disabled state is represented.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is an empty object, consistent with the no-argument status check.

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?

Names a specific resource (Live Editor bridge) and the attribute returned (status), so an agent knows this is a status query rather than a data fetch. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling bridge_live_fetch, leaving the boundary to be inferred from the name alone.

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 gives the enabling condition (UNITY_MCP_BRIDGE_URL/PORT must point at 127.0.0.1) and the default (disabled), which implicitly tells an agent when the tool is usable. It never states when to call this versus bridge_live_fetch, nor what to do when the bridge is disabled.

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