user_presencePresence for up to 100 user ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userPresences | No | Array of presence objects |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "user_ids": [
+ 1,
+ 2,
+ 3
+ ]
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "User presence information",
+ "properties": {
+ "userPresences": {
+ "description": "Array of presence objects",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "gameId": {
+ "description": "Game session ID if in-game",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "lastLocation": {
+ "description": "Last known location",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "lastPresenceUpdate": {
+ "description": "Last presence update timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "placeId": {
+ "description": "Current place/game ID if in-game",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "rootPlaceId": {
+ "description": "Root place ID if in-game",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "universeId": {
+ "description": "Universe ID if in-game",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "userId": {
+ "description": "User ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "userPresenceType": {
+ "description": "Presence type (0=offline, 1=online, 2=in-game, 3=studio)",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the input limit of 100 user IDs, but does not explain what 'presence' means or any responses.
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, concise but not front-loaded with a clear action. It could be restructured to start with a verb. No wasted words, but under-specified.
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 output schema exists (but unavailable to the agent via description) and no detail on presence semantics, the description leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively. It does not define presence states or provide example usage.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It specifies the user_ids parameter is for 'up to 100 user ids', clarifying a constraint not in the schema, but fails to explain what presence data is retrieved or the output structure.
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 'Presence for up to 100 user ids' is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, making the action unclear (is it 'get', 'check', 'update'?). It barely distinguishes from siblings like 'user' or 'user_badges', which also relate to users.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context (e.g., checking online status) or exclusion conditions.
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.