Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
2021 Roblox Studio MCP Bridge

2021 Roblox Studio MCP Bridge

by aswdffdas-sudo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

delete_instance

Deletes a specified instance from the Roblox Studio DataModel via its path, helping you remove unwanted objects from the scene.

Instructions

Deletes an instance from the DataModel

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.6
    • removedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Removed value: -"Path of instance to destroy"
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation but discloses nothing about irreversibility, whether child instances are deleted recursively, permission requirements, or failure modes when the path does not exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum cover the path format, recursion/cascade behavior, and whether the deletion is permanent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter has no type documentation beyond 'string'. The description says 'instance from the DataModel' but never explains the expected path format (e.g. game.Workspace.Part), which is the one detail needed to invoke this correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('an instance from the DataModel'), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation – create_instance is the obvious inverse, but the description never contrasts itself with it or with inspect_instance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning context for a destructive operation. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools