Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_timeline_balance

Inspect timeline health by comparing playable assets with bound PlayableDirectors and checking Signal/Marker coverage to spot unbound or missing elements.

Instructions

Timeline health: playable assets vs bound PlayableDirectors, Signal/Marker coverage.

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_timeline_balance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 subject matter being inspected. It never states that the call is read-only, that it is cheap/safe to call ad hoc, or what the response looks like (per-object rows, aggregate counts, coverage percentages).

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 compact clause with no filler, and the subject is front-loaded. It is slightly clipped to the point of being a fragment, but nothing is redundant.

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 diagnostic read this is close to sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema the description is the only place a return-value shape could be conveyed, and it does not convey one. The agent knows what topic is inspected but not what it will receive back.

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 description correctly implies no input is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (timeline) and the things it reports on (playable assets vs bound PlayableDirectors, Signal/Marker coverage), so the subject matter is inferable. However, 'Timeline health:' is a framing label rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never says whether this returns counts, ratios, or booleans. It is distinguishable from list_timeline_playables only by implication, not by explicit contrast.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative — not even list_timeline_playables, which is the obvious near-neighbor. The agent must guess whether to call this for diagnosing unbound directors or to call the lister first.

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