Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_multiplayer_stack

Detect multiplayer packages and NetworkBehaviour-style scripts in a Unity project, including NGO, Relay, Lobby, Mirror, and Photon, to identify the project's networking stack.

Instructions

Detect Netcode / multiplayer packages and NetworkBehaviour-style scripts (NGO, Relay, Lobby, Mirror, Photon, …).

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_multiplayer_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the detection targets. It never states that the operation is read-only, whether it scans the whole project or just packages, whether it is expensive, or what form the findings take. The scope sentence is useful, but the behavioral profile is largely undisclosed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the package list as a compact illustration. No filler and nothing to trim.

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-parameter scan this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what a result looks like (detected packages vs. scripts, presence booleans, versions). That gap leaves the agent guessing about the return value.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the scan is unfiltered and project-wide.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Detect') and a specific resource class: Netcode/multiplayer packages plus NetworkBehaviour-style scripts. The parenthetical enumerating NGO, Relay, Lobby, Mirror and Photon makes the scope concrete. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling 'stack' tools such as get_physics_stack, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the multiplayer counterpart to the other get_*_stack detectors purely from naming convention. Acceptable for a zero-parameter scan, but nothing in the text routes the agent.

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