2021 Roblox Studio MCP Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_tree

Scans a Roblox DataModel root path and returns its hierarchy tree up to a set depth, enabling AI assistants to inspect object structure.

Instructions

Scans and returns the hierarchy tree starting at root path

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`root`	No		game.Workspace
`maxDepth`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.6Sep 30, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / maxDepth / description
```
Removed value: -"Max recursive depth to traverse (default: 2)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / root / description
```
Removed value: -"Instance path (e.g. 'game.Workspace', 'game.ServerScriptService')"
```
First observedv1.0.0Sep 12, 2026

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. 'Scans and returns' implies a read, but nothing is said about traversal depth behavior, result size, performance cost on large hierarchies, or whether the walk is exhaustive.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient rather than padding, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

Two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits the depth-bounding behavior that governs the return payload, leaving an agent unable to predict what the tree will contain.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives partial meaning to 'root' as the traversal start, but says nothing about 'maxDepth' (or that maxDepth defaults to 2, which materially limits what the tree contains).

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?

States a specific verb ('scans and returns') and resource ('hierarchy tree') with a starting scope ('starting at root path'). It is roughly distinguishable from search_game_tree, but the description never names or contrasts that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no alternatives. Given search_game_tree and inspect_instance exist as siblings, an agent gets no help deciding between a full-tree scan and a targeted search.

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