Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_test_results_summary

Summarizes Unity Test Runner XML results by reporting passed, failed, and skipped totals per file and listing failing test names.

Instructions

Summarize Test Runner XML: totals passed/failed/skipped per file with failing test names.

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_test_results_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_filesNoMax result files to parse, default 10

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 return shape (per-file totals plus failing test names), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states that execution is read-only, that only the first N files are parsed, or what happens when no result files exist.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the output contents enumerated immediately after; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned but leaves the input source and the semantics of the file cap unaddressed. An agent knows what it gets back but not fully what it operates on.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter max_files is documented in-schema with its default of 10. The description adds no further meaning, such as whether truncation of files affects the reported totals, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Summarize Test Runner XML" names a specific verb and resource, and the clause "totals passed/failed/skipped per file with failing test names" pins down exactly what the summary contains. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_test_result_files or get_build_report_summary, so it stops 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus list_test_result_files or get_build_report_summary, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether result files must exist or where they are found). Usage is only inferable from the tool's name and one-line purpose.

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