Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Server

Unity MCP Server

by rachitkumarrastogi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_video_clips

Retrieves a list of all video clip assets (.mp4, .mov, .webm, .avi, .asf) in the Unity project for asset management.

Instructions

List video clip assets (.mp4, .mov, .webm, .avi, .asf).

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_video_clips"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only lists file extensions and omits details like output format, scope (e.g., whole project), performance implications, or whether it returns full paths or just names. This is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise, e.g., specifying the scope (project-wide) or output type.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It lists file extensions but does not specify the return value or context (e.g., lists assets in the project). For a list tool among many similar siblings, more context would help completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info beyond the schema. It is acceptable but adds no extra value.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'video clip assets' with specific file extensions (.mp4, .mov, .webm, .avi, .asf). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_audio_clips or list_animation_clips, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools listing different asset types or using different query methods (e.g., list_assets_by_extension), the description does not help the agent decide which tool to invoke.

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