Insert a Roblox Toolbox model or mesh into your game by numeric asset ID, optionally under a chosen parent, so agents can add catalog assets without manual searching.
Insert a Toolbox/model asset by numeric asset ID into the game (InsertService:LoadAsset). E.g. free models, meshes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent | No | Parent path, default Workspace | |
| assetId | Yes | Numeric catalog asset ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about prerequisites (does the asset need to be free/owned?), whether this requires an open Studio session or network access, how failures are surfaced, or that it mutates the place -- all material for an insert operation, though the LoadAsset reference does hint at the auth model.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by an API reference and a brief example. Every element is brief and none is wasted, though the trailing 'E.g.' adds little.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is inserted, by what identifier, and via which API. It omits failure/permission behavior and what the caller receives back, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'parent' (default Workspace) and 'assetId' documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the ID is numeric, adding nothing beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource -- insert an asset by numeric ID into the game -- and cites the underlying operation (InsertService:LoadAsset), so an agent knows exactly what happens. It does not name or distinguish itself from the nearby toolbox_search/toolbox_info siblings, which would have made it a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. 'E.g. free models, meshes' illustrates asset types rather than usage context, so the agent must infer that this follows a toolbox_search or a known assetId on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.