Checks if Roblox Studio is running and returns its PIDs, executable path, and version. Use it to verify Studio availability before launching, opening places, or executing Luau.
Check if Roblox Studio is running, its PIDs, exe path and version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It communicates that this is an observational status check and previews the returned fields, but it does not state whether the tool errors, returns an empty result, or actually launches Studio when nothing is running.
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 verb and resource, with no filler. Every clause adds information.
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, listing the returned fields (PIDs, exe path, version) usefully compensates. The only gap is the not-running behavior, which matters for a status tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond returning no input.
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 ('Check if Roblox Studio is running') and enumerates the returned facts (PIDs, exe path, version). It is distinguishable from process-control siblings like studio_launch and studio_close, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative such as bridge_status.
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 at all. The agent can infer this is a pre-flight/diagnostic check before launching or executing, but the description never says when to reach for it versus studio_launch or bridge_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.