Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
assetcache-mcp

assetcache-mcp

by v0o0v
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

request_rescan

Request re-analysis of Unity asset packs or individual assets to update cached index and labels.

Instructions

특정 팩/자산 또는 전체의 재분석을 트리거한다.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "req": "<req>"
    },
    "name": "request_rescan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reqYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.7

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'triggers re-analysis' without mentioning side effects, async behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing data. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and target. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though it lacks depth.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a nested request schema. The description provides almost no contextual information about what the tool returns, whether it is asynchronous, or what 're-analysis' entails. This is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by indicating the scope options ('specific pack/asset or entire'), which map to pack_id/asset_id and all. However, it does not explain the req wrapper or how to structure the nested fields, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('triggers re-analysis') and the target ('specific pack/asset or all'), using a specific verb+resource structure. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools that primarily list, retrieve, or manage assets/packs.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that it should be used when re-analysis is desired, but there is no explicit context.

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