Lists ECS/DOTS .subscene assets in a Unity project so you can inspect scene configurations without opening the Unity Editor.
List ECS/DOTS .subscene assets.
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_subscenes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and says nothing about scope, such as whether it scans the whole project, a folder, or loaded scenes. It also omits pagination/volume expectations and what a result entry looks like; only the read-only nature is implied by 'List'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than optimal density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns at a high level but leaves scope, result shape, and volume unstated. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 clarify beyond the schema; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description does at least identify the asset domain the listing is restricted to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List ... .subscene assets') and qualifies the asset type as ECS/DOTS, which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby 'list_all_scenes', so an agent must infer that this covers subscenes rather than standard scenes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition under which an agent should prefer this over 'list_all_scenes' or the other scene-listing siblings, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., an ECS package being installed). The only guidance is implicit in the asset type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.