2021 Roblox Studio MCP Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect_instance

Retrieve detailed properties, children, attributes, and tags for a Roblox instance by path, so you can understand its structure before modifying the DataModel.

Instructions

Inspects detailed properties, children, attributes, and tags of an instance

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": "inspect_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	The path of the instance (e.g. Workspace.Part or ServerScriptService.Handler)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.5.6Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspects' implies a read-only operation, but it never confirms non-mutation, does not state depth/recursion limits, pagination, or behavior for missing paths — all material for an inspection tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One short sentence with the verb and the inspected facets front-loaded; every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of return-shape information; listing properties/children/attributes/tags partially covers that. Missing depth limits, missing-path behavior, and return structure leave gaps for a tool whose whole job is producing detail.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single path parameter already documents format with two concrete examples (Workspace.Part, ServerScriptService.Handler). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (inspects) and resource (instance), and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: properties, children, attributes, and tags. It is distinguishable from get_tree/search_game_tree by scoping to one instance, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. instance must exist / be selected), and no mention of alternatives such as get_tree or search_game_tree for broader discovery. The agent must infer context entirely.

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