Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_cinemachine_assets

Lists Cinemachine package files and virtual camera assets or prefabs under Assets, so you can locate camera configurations without opening the Unity Editor.

Instructions

Cinemachine package + virtual camera assets/prefabs under Assets.

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_cinemachine_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.2

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: no indication of recursion depth, whether package contents are included alongside project assets, result ordering, or volume. For a zero-parameter listing tool the risk is low, but the read-only, enumeration behavior is left entirely to inference.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is brief with no wasted words, but it is a telegraphic noun phrase with no verb or front-loaded statement of action, which reads as terse rather than structured. Size is appropriate; clarity of phrasing is the weakness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a zero-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what is returned and whether the search is recursive or includes package folders. 'Cinemachine package + virtual camera assets/prefabs under Assets' leaves that ambiguous, so an agent cannot predict the result set.

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 for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the description.

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 fragment names the resource (Cinemachine package plus virtual camera assets/prefabs) and adds scope ('under Assets'), which is more than the name alone. But it has no verb and does not clearly distinguish what it returns from siblings like list_assets_by_extension or list_animator_controllers. An agent can guess it lists Cinemachine-related assets, but the boundary is fuzzy.

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 when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many listing siblings. The only implicit cue is the Cinemachine domain, which the agent must infer selects this tool.

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