Scan 3D objects in a Roblox scene to list all external asset IDs, including sounds, meshes, decals, animations, and clothing. Optionally limit the audit to a specific service or model path.
Scans all 3D objects in the scene (sounds, meshes, decals, animations, clothing) and reports all external asset IDs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | No | Optional specific service or model path to scan (defaults to all services) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Scans' and 'reports' imply a read-only operation, but nothing states permissions, whether the scan is expensive/slow across a large scene, or any side effects. The read-only nature is conveyed but the operational profile is thin.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with the parenthetical enumeration adding precision at no cost. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names what is returned (external asset IDs) and what is scanned, which covers most agent needs. It stops short of describing the return shape or grouping, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.
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?
Only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the service/path filter fully. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 ('Scans') plus the exact resource ('all 3D objects in the scene') and enumerates the object kinds covered (sounds, meshes, decals, animations, clothing). The 'reports all external asset IDs' clause makes the outcome concrete and distinguishes it from inspection siblings like inspect_instance or get_tree.
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?
The description implies when the tool is useful (auditing external asset references) but never states explicit conditions, prerequisites, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., get_tree or inspect_instance for narrower reads). Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.