Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_meta_for_asset

Reads the .meta file for any Unity asset path, returning its GUID and key-value metadata pairs.

Instructions

Read .meta for any asset path (guid and key-value pairs).

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_meta_for_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_pathYese.g. Assets/Models/Character.fbx

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a non-destructive read operation and mentions output contents (guid, key-value pairs). However, it omits details like error behavior, permissions, or path validation, which would improve transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and conveys the essential purpose efficiently.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not complete information. It mentions the return includes guid and key-value pairs but doesn't specify the exact structure or format. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but could be enhanced.

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?

Schema describes the sole parameter (asset_path) with an example. The description adds meaning by specifying the return value (guid and key-value pairs), which goes beyond the schema's parameter description. This helps the agent understand what the tool provides.

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 reads .meta files for any asset path and returns guid and key-value pairs. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('.meta'), differentiating it from siblings like get_texture_meta which targets texture-specific metadata.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only implies its function, but lacks context for tool selection among many sibling read tools.

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