userFetch a Roblox user's public profile by numeric user_id; returns display name, username, description, account creation date, and ban status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | User ID | |
| name | No | Username | |
| created | No | Account creation date (ISO 8601) | |
| isBanned | No | Whether user is banned | |
| description | No | User bio/description | |
| displayName | No | Display name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "user_id": 1
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "User profile information",
+ "properties": {
+ "created": {
+ "description": "Account creation date (ISO 8601)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "User bio/description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "displayName": {
+ "description": "Display name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "User ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "isBanned": {
+ "description": "Whether user is banned",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Username",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral burden is reduced. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (display name, username, description, account creation date, ban status), which is not in annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that packs essential information (verb, resource, parameter, return fields) with no extraneous content. It is highly efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects), the description is reasonably complete, listing key return fields. However, it could mention potential error conditions or authentication requirements, and the output schema is not explicitly shown but the description compensates.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the user_id parameter must be numeric, but does not provide additional constraints or format details. This minimal addition meets the baseline for a single parameter.
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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'a Roblox user's public profile', the required parameter 'numeric user_id', and lists the specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'user_by_username' by specifying the identifier type.
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?
The description implies usage when a numeric user_id is available ('by numeric user_id') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like user_by_username, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially within the Roblox and Pipeworx domains. However, the three variants of ask_pipeworx (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar and could cause confusion, as could deep_research vs ask_pipeworx.
Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (user_followers_count), verb_noun with underscores (ask_pipeworx), and camelCase (recall, forget). Roblox tools follow a consistent 'user_' prefix, but Pipeworx tools lack a uniform pattern.
41 tools is excessive for a server named 'Roblox'. The majority of tools are Pipeworx data utilities, which are unrelated to the server's apparent focus. This overloading undermines coherence.
Coverage within the Roblox domain is basic (user profiles, friends, games) but misses common features like asset details or group management. Pipeworx appears comprehensive for data lookups, but the overall set lacks unified domain completeness.