Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

rollback_roblox_place

Destructive

Roll a Roblox project's place back to a previously-published version.

For a `roblox_game` project, re-publishes the RETAINED build artifact for
`version_number` (get published versions from the web Roblox Publishing card)
— it never rebuilds from source, so rollback is fast + deterministic. This
mints a NEW Roblox version pointing at the old build. Unknown version → 404;
a version with no retained artifact → 422; a place open in Studio /
rate-limited → 409 (retry); an invalid or unscoped Open Cloud key → 409 /
403. Returns {version_number, env, published_at, status, next_step}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
version_numberYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it 'never rebuilds from source', 'mints a NEW Roblox version pointing at the old build', and lists specific error codes (404, 422, 409) with meanings. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, which the description aligns with. It goes above annotations by detailing rate limits, invalid key handling, and the return payload. This is excellent transparency.

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 well-organized: a lead sentence stating purpose, then a clause on how it works, then error scenario details, then the return shape. It is concise yet packed with necessary details, with no filler or fluff. Each sentence serves a distinct role, and the error code list is efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool complexity (destructive operation, external platform interaction, error handling), the description is remarkably complete. It covers usage constraints, failure modes, retry guidance, and the output schema (though also present separately). With annotations and output schema, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 2 parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'version_number' implicitly (it references getting published versions) but does not explain the meaning or constraints of 'project_id' or the exact syntax of 'version_number' (e.g., that it's an integer existing in the list). Since the schema itself provides only names and types, the description fails to add sufficient semantic elaboration to make parameter usage clear.

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 tool's action: rolling back a Roblox project's place to a previously-published version. It specifies the resource ('place'), the operation ('roll back'), and adds context (for 'roblox_game' projects) and distinguishes it from rebuilding from source. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update or publish by focusing on rolling back to a retained artifact.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear usage context: it's for roblox_game projects, and tells the agent to get published versions from the web Roblox Publishing card. It also infers when to use it (when rolling back is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use this only when you need to revert to a published version, not for normal updates'). However, given the limited sibling tool set, this is adequate.

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

All Keelen toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action duo, even within clusters like request handling or security reviews. The get_ vs run_ pairs are clearly separated, and descriptions explicitly contrast confusing alternatives such as archive_project vs delete_project.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun snake_case (submit_request, list_projects, resolve_escalation). The one visible deviation is project_status, which breaks the get_/pattern, and signup is a single-word verb instead of sign_up.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and spans auth, billing, project lifecycle, roadmap, escalations, product documents, and multiple review types. Most tools earn their place, but the surface is too large for one server and would be more coherent split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The domain coverage is broad: full project lifecycle, request intake/refinement, roadmap manipulation, escalation handling, product doc read/write, and security/legal review flows. Minor gaps exist, most notably no dedicated task-listing or task-update tool, but agents can work around these via project_status and list_escalations.

Resources