Retrieve the source code of a Roblox script by its instance path. Use it to inspect script logic in Studio via paths like ServerScriptService.MyScript or Workspace.Part.Script.
Read Source of a script by path (e.g. 'ServerScriptService.MyScript', 'Workspace.Part.Script').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a safe, non-mutating operation, but it says nothing about permission requirements, behavior when the path does not resolve, truncation of large sources, or whether the returned source is the live script text.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the example paths appended tightly. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers how to address the script but not what comes back (the source text) or error behavior for an unresolved path. Adequate but with a visible gap around the return value.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the single required 'path' parameter is bare, but the description compensates by giving two concrete dot-notation path examples, which is exactly the format detail the schema omits.
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+resource ('Read Source of a script') and the path format with concrete examples like 'ServerScriptService.MyScript'. An agent can distinguish this from write_script, list_scripts, and grep_scripts, though siblings are never named 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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. With siblings like list_scripts and grep_scripts present, the description never says whether to reach for this tool versus those for inspecting scripts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.