Inspect a Roblox Studio instance to retrieve requested properties, attributes, tags, and child count using exact paths ([] for game).
Inspect an instance: requested properties, attributes, tags and child count. Paths are arrays of exact names; [] is game.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| studio_id | Yes | Exact official Studio ID or plugin: ID from roblox_studio list. | |
| properties | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that only requested properties plus attributes/tags/child count are returned, which is useful since there is no output schema, but it omits limits, error behavior for bad paths, and result size characteristics.
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?
Two short clauses, zero filler, with the retrieval scope front-loaded and the path convention appended. Appropriately sized for a simple read tool.
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?
With no output schema the description partially carries the return-value burden by naming what is inspected. It is still thin on path failure cases, the 30-property cap, and whether inspection recurses into children, which matters given the 64-element path limit.
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?
At 33% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does explain path as an array of exact names with [] meaning game — a genuinely necessary detail. However it only gestures at the properties parameter ('requested properties') and says nothing about the maxItems caps or the studio_id reference.
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?
States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (an instance) plus exactly what is retrieved: properties, attributes, tags, child count. This contrasts implicitly with mutating siblings like roblox_edit and roblox_script, though it never names them explicitly.
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 on when to choose this over roblox_query or roblox_advanced, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The reader must infer it is the read/inspect counterpart to the edit tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.