Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_test_result_files

Find Unity Test Runner XML result files (NUnit/JUnit) in a project without opening the Unity Editor, so you can locate test outputs for review.

Instructions

Find Unity Test Runner XML results (NUnit/JUnit) in the project. No Editor required.

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_test_result_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does volunteer one meaningful behavioral trait — it works without the Editor running, implying a filesystem scan — but says nothing about search scope (whole project vs. Assets), recursion, or whether files are read or merely located.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the operational constraint follows, which is the right order for scanning.

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 zero-parameter listing tool the description is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema it never indicates what comes back — file paths, names, counts, or parsed results. That omission is the main thing an agent is left guessing about.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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?

"Find Unity Test Runner XML results (NUnit/JUnit) in the project" gives a specific verb and a well-scoped resource, and naming the file formats narrows it further. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_test_results_summary, so an agent must infer that this one locates files while the other parses them.

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?

"No Editor required" implies this works against on-disk artifacts rather than a live Editor session, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over get_test_results_summary, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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