Scan and return the hierarchy tree from a given root path in the Roblox DataModel. Set max depth to inspect nested instances for scripting and debugging.
Scans and returns the hierarchy tree starting at root path
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Instance path (e.g. 'game.Workspace', 'game.ServerScriptService') | game.Workspace |
| maxDepth | No | Max recursive depth to traverse (default: 2) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Scans' hints at a read operation, but there is no disclosure of cost/performance for large trees, the effect of maxDepth on what is returned, or whether the result is nested or flattened. This is a meaningful gap for a traversal tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint is stated up front. It is efficient but arguably too terse to be fully useful.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return shape (nested tree vs flat list) and depth behavior. Neither is covered, leaving the agent guessing at the result format for a tool whose output structure is non-obvious.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both root and maxDepth are already documented. The description only reinforces the root concept ('starting at root path') and adds nothing about maxDepth defaults or semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description gives a specific verb ('scans and returns') and resource ('hierarchy tree') scoped by a root path. An agent can tell it apart from read_script or get_output_log. However, it never names or contrasts any sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as read_script or get_output_log, and no mention of prerequisites or when-not to use it. Usage is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.