Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_build_reports

List saved Unity build reports and logs to inspect build results and diagnose failures without opening the Unity Editor.

Instructions

List saved build reports (BuildReport JSON/text, build logs) in the project.

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": "list_build_reports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 burden. "List" implies a read-only enumeration and it usefully discloses what kinds of artifacts come back (BuildReport JSON/text plus build logs), but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result volume, or whether filtered/pruned reports are included.

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, and the parenthetical adds real content rather than restating the name. Slightly compact — it could have added one routing clause at near-zero cost.

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 no-param, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the essentials of what is returned, but without an output schema it should say more about the shape of results (fields, grouping, quantities) to be fully self-contained. Adequate, not 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 there is no parameter semantics for a description to compensate for; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the input surface.

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 states a specific verb (List) plus a specific resource (saved build reports/build logs) with project scoping, and the parenthetical enumerates content types. It does not name a sibling such as get_build_report_summary to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of the top score.

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 context and no exclusions or alternatives; it never says whether to use this versus get_build_report_summary or the other list_* tools. The only cue is the project scoping, which is inferable rather than stated.

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