Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_materials_using_shader

Find all material asset paths that reference a specific shader by providing its GUID or asset path.

Instructions

List material paths that use a given shader (pass shader GUID or asset path).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "shader_guid_or_path": "<shader_guid_or_path>"
    },
    "name": "list_materials_using_shader"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shader_guid_or_pathYes32-char shader GUID or path e.g. Assets/Shaders/My.shader

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.2
  2. Removedv1.5.1
  3. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether paths are relative/absolute, how results are formatted, or if the tool has side effects. It only states the basic function, insufficient for full transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence, clearly structured with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and input format.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details like return format or whether paths are relative/absolute, leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed description of the sole parameter. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only rephrases the parameter purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists material paths using a given shader, specifying input as GUID or asset path. It distinguishes from siblings like list_materials and list_shaders by focusing on materials that use a specific shader.

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?

The description implies use when you need materials using a specific shader, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., list_materials for all materials). No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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