Skip to main content
Glama

shader_delete

Remove shader files from Unity projects to clean up unused assets and manage project resources effectively.

Instructions

Delete a shader from Unity project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the shader file

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler for the 'shader_delete' MCP tool within the executeTool switch statement. Validates the 'path' argument and delegates to UnityHttpAdapter.deleteShader().
    case 'shader_delete': {
      if (!args.path) {
        throw new Error('path is required');
      }
      await this.adapter.deleteShader(args.path);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: `Shader deleted successfully: ${args.path}`
        }]
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition specifying the input parameters for shader_delete, included in the getTools() return array for registration.
    {
      name: 'shader_delete',
      description: 'Delete a shader from Unity project',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          path: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Path to the shader file'
          }
        },
        required: ['path']
      }
    },
  • Implementation of deleteShader in UnityHttpAdapter that makes an HTTP POST request to the Unity MCP server endpoint 'shader/delete'.
    async deleteShader(path: string): Promise<any> {
      return this.call('shader/delete', { path });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if it's reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., breaking references in the project). This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.

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 insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., irreversibility, error conditions), usage context, or what happens upon success/failure. Given the complexity of file deletion in a project environment, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., path format, examples). According to scoring rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%).

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 target resource ('a shader from Unity project'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'script_delete' or 'folder_delete' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., shader must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools like 'shader_read' for verification. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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