Retrieve Unity editor state including project path, version, compilation status, play mode, active scene, and build target to support debugging and automation.
Editor state: project path, Unity version, compiling, play mode, active scene, build target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the concrete data items exposed (project path, Unity version, play mode, build target), which is useful behavioral content, but it never states that the call is side-effect free, how expensive it is, or whether values reflect live vs. cached state.
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 compact sentence with the key information front-loaded ('Editor state:'). Zero waste, but the fragmentary construction sacrifices a little clarity for brevity.
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?
With no output schema, the description is effectively the only documentation of return values, and it enumerates them adequately. For a zero-param read tool this is close to sufficient, missing only whether the result is a snapshot object and how the fields are formatted.
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 the baseline is 4. The description's field enumeration instead usefully documents the shape of the result, though it stops short of describing each field's type or format.
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 names the resource (editor state) and enumerates the specific fields returned, which lets an agent distinguish this from siblings like unity_console or unity_execute_menu. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, so 'what the tool does' (return/read current state) is only implied rather than stated.
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 indication of when to call this versus alternatives such as unity_refresh or unity_console, nor any prerequisite or follow-up guidance. The agent must infer that this is the read-only inspection call from the field list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.