Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_terrain_data

List all TerrainData and TerrainLayer asset files in a Unity project to inspect terrain properties without opening the Unity Editor.

Instructions

List TerrainData and TerrainLayer .asset files.

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_terrain_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the tool lists certain .asset files, which is straightforward for a read-only listing. However, it lacks details like recursion, search scope, or output format, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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, efficient sentence that gets directly to the point. Every word is necessary, with no fluff or repetition. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the output format or scope (e.g., project-wide or current selection), which could be inferred from sibling tools but is not explicit. Leaves room for ambiguity.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not add parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline score of 3 applies per guidelines.

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 specific asset types (TerrainData and TerrainLayer .asset files), distinguishing it from sibling list_* tools that focus on other asset categories. The verb 'List' and resource types are precise and unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and description focusing on terrain asset files, but no when-not or alternative conditions are 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