Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_project_stats

Retrieve Unity project statistics—including script, prefab, scene, material, animation, assembly, and package counts—directly from filesystem metadata without requiring the Unity Editor.

Instructions

One-shot project stats: script count, prefabs, scenes, materials, animations, assemblies, packages.

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_project_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the breadth of returned data, which is the main behavioral fact for a read-only aggregate, but it says nothing about cost, project-scope requirements, or whether the counts are cached/expensive to compute.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every token names either the scope or a returned metric. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly weakens readability but not economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned categories substitutes well for a return-value contract. It lacks any note on output shape (flat counts vs nested) or cost, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed ('one-shot'), and there is no parameter vocabulary to clarify further.

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?

States a specific resource (project stats) and enumerates exactly what is counted: scripts, prefabs, scenes, materials, animations, assemblies, packages. An agent can tell this is a counts-summary tool rather than a detail-lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_project_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"One-shot" implies a single call returning an aggregate snapshot rather than per-item detail, which hints at when to prefer it. However, no sibling tool is named and no exclusion (e.g. 'use get_project_info for version/company metadata') is given, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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