Skip to main content
Glama

folder_delete

Remove folders from Unity projects to manage project structure and clean up unused assets. Specify a path to delete folders and optionally remove all contents recursively.

Instructions

Delete a folder from Unity project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath of the folder to delete
recursiveNoDelete all contents recursively (default: true)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler logic for the 'folder_delete' tool. Validates the 'path' parameter and calls the adapter's deleteFolder method with optional 'recursive' flag. Returns success message.
    case 'folder_delete': {
      if (!args.path) {
        throw new Error('path is required');
      }
      await this.adapter.deleteFolder(args.path, args.recursive);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: `Folder deleted successfully: ${args.path}`
        }]
      };
  • Input schema definition for the 'folder_delete' tool, specifying required 'path' and optional 'recursive' boolean.
    {
      name: 'folder_delete',
      description: 'Delete a folder from Unity project',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          path: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Path of the folder to delete'
          },
          recursive: {
            type: 'boolean',
            description: 'Delete all contents recursively (default: true)'
          }
        },
        required: ['path']
      }
  • Helper method in UnityHttpAdapter that sends HTTP request to Unity server endpoint 'folder/delete' with path and recursive parameters.
    async deleteFolder(path: string, recursive: boolean = true): Promise<{ path: string }> {
      return this.call('folder/delete', { path, recursive });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete' but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects project integrity, or has side effects (e.g., breaking references). The description adds minimal context beyond the obvious destructive nature implied by 'Delete'.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety concerns (e.g., confirmation, reversibility), error conditions, or what happens upon success/failure. Given the complexity of deletion in a project context, more guidance is needed to help an agent use this tool responsibly.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('path' and 'recursive'). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., path format examples, recursive implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a folder from Unity project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'folder_move' or 'folder_rename', but the verb 'Delete' provides inherent differentiation from creation, listing, moving, and renaming operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., folder must exist), warn about irreversible deletion, or suggest alternatives like 'folder_move' for relocation instead of removal. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zabaglione/mcp-server-unity'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server