Roblox Studio MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between 'create_object' and 'create_object_with_properties', and between 'mass_create_objects' and 'mass_create_objects_with_properties', which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify the differences, and other tools like 'search_objects' vs 'search_by_property' are well-differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures (e.g., 'create_object', 'get_instance_properties', 'set_script_source'). There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count3/5With 24 tools, the count is on the higher side for a single domain, which may feel heavy and could overwhelm agents. While the tools cover many aspects of Roblox Studio, some could potentially be consolidated (e.g., the multiple 'mass_' tools) to reduce complexity.
Completeness5/5The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Roblox Studio operations, including CRUD for objects (create, delete, get, set), property management, scripting, searching, and project hierarchy exploration. No obvious gaps are present; agents can perform full lifecycle management and complex workflows.
Average 3/5 across 24 of 24 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Perform multiple smart duplications' implies a write operation that creates multiple objects, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, rate limits, or what 'smart' entails beyond what the schema shows. The description adds almost no value beyond the basic action implied by the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it's arguably too concise given the tool's complexity and lack of sibling differentiation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex batch operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'smart' means, doesn't differentiate from similar tools, provides no behavioral context for a write operation, and offers no guidance on proper usage. The agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema's comprehensive property descriptions. The term 'smart' in the description might hint at the offset/variation capabilities, but this is already explicit in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Perform multiple smart duplications at once' clearly indicates a batch duplication operation, which is more specific than just 'duplicate'. However, it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling 'smart_duplicate' tool, nor does it specify what makes the duplication 'smart' - whether it refers to the offset/variation capabilities shown in the schema or something else.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'smart_duplicate' tool, nor when to use it versus other creation tools like 'mass_create_objects'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or alternatives for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'child objects' entails (e.g., depth, format). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for the information provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool's context is incomplete. The description doesn't clarify what 'child objects' are, how results are structured, or any limitations, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex data. More detail is needed to compensate for the lack of structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'instancePath' documented as 'Path to the parent instance'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the parameter's role or format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get child objects and their types' clearly states the action (get) and target (child objects and types), but it's vague about what 'objects' and 'types' refer to in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_instance_properties' or 'get_project_structure', leaving ambiguity about scope and resource specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_instance_properties' and 'get_project_structure' that might overlap in functionality, the description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, offering no help for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Find objects' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only vs. destructive operations, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. This is a significant gap for a search tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a search function with siblings, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'objects' refer to, how results are returned, or constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('propertyName' and 'propertyValue'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying property-based searching, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find objects with specific property values' clearly states the tool's purpose with a verb ('Find') and resource ('objects'), but it's vague about what type of objects and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'search_objects' or 'search_files'. It provides a basic function but doesn't specify scope or uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_objects' and 'search_files', the description doesn't indicate if this is for general object searches, property-based filtering, or specific contexts, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens if properties conflict. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., returns the created object ID), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of creating objects with properties in Roblox, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'initial properties' which aligns with the 'properties' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about property formats or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new Roblox object instance'), specifying it's for creating objects with initial properties. It distinguishes from the simpler 'create_object' sibling by mentioning 'with initial properties', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'mass_create_objects_with_properties'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_object' (without properties) or 'mass_create_objects_with_properties' (for bulk operations). It mentions 'with initial properties' but doesn't clarify the trade-offs or appropriate contexts for choosing this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Delete' entails behaviorally, what the return value might be, or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools (e.g., vs. mass operations). More context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'instancePath' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('a Roblox object instance'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential alternatives like 'mass_delete' or explain what constitutes a 'Roblox object instance' versus other entities in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'mass_create_objects' and 'mass_duplicate', there's no indication if this is for single deletions, if it's irreversible, or what prerequisites might exist (e.g., needing to fetch an instance first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like response format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of properties/methods, their types, or inheritance details), error cases, or usage context. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more behavioral and output details to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'className' clearly documented as 'Roblox class name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available properties/methods for Roblox classes'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_instance_properties or get_place_info by focusing on class metadata rather than instance or place data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid class name), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like get_instance_properties or get_services. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'complete hierarchy' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like performance implications, depth limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. Every part of the description contributes directly to explaining what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely returns complex hierarchical data, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return structure, depth, or how to interpret the hierarchy, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'path' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'complete hierarchy of the Roblox Studio project', specifying it includes 'script types, models, and folders'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_project_structure' by focusing on hierarchy rather than general structure, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_structure', 'get_instance_children', or 'search_files'. The description implies a hierarchical view but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all properties' but doesn't clarify what 'properties' entail (e.g., metadata, attributes), whether this is a read-only operation, if there are permissions required, or how results are formatted. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'properties' include, the return format, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that retrieves data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and documents the single parameter 'instancePath' as a string path. The description implies the parameter identifies an instance but doesn't elaborate on format or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('properties of a specific instance'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_instance_children' or 'mass_get_property', which could also retrieve instance-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_instance_children' and 'mass_get_property' that might retrieve related data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the path is invalid or the object isn't a script, whether there are rate limits, what format the source code returns in, or if there are size limitations. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (string format, encoding, etc.), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given that this retrieves source code - potentially large or sensitive content - more context about the operation's behavior and output is needed for the agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the instancePath parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't clarify path format requirements, validation rules, or provide examples beyond what's in the schema description. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'source code of a script object', specifying the object types (LocalScript, Script, or ModuleScript). It distinguishes from siblings like get_instance_properties or get_file_tree by focusing specifically on script source code retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from set_script_source (which is the inverse operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use get_script_source versus get_instance_properties (which might return metadata instead of source), or when to use it versus search_files/search_objects for finding scripts. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creation and property setting but omits critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, how errors are handled (e.g., partial failures), rate limits, or what the response looks like (e.g., returns IDs). For a batch mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Create multiple objects at once') and adds the key qualifier ('with initial properties'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address error handling, response format, permissions, or performance implications. Given the complexity of batch operations and the lack of structured data, more contextual guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'objects' parameter and its nested structure. The description adds minimal value by implying batch creation and property initialization, but doesn't clarify semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what 'initial properties' means contextually).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create multiple objects at once') and the key feature ('with initial properties'), which distinguishes it from basic creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mass_create_objects' or 'create_object_with_properties' beyond the 'multiple objects' aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mass_create_objects' (which might not set properties) or 'create_object_with_properties' (which creates single objects). There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or trade-offs for batch creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), rate limits, error handling for invalid paths, or output format, which is critical for a tool handling multiple instances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of batch operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error scenarios, or performance implications, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use this tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (paths and propertyName). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying batch processing, which doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target ('the same property from multiple instances at once'), distinguishing it from single-instance tools like get_instance_properties. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mass operations like mass_create_objects or mass_set_property, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_instance_properties (for single instances) or search_by_property (for property-based queries). It lacks context on prerequisites, performance trade-offs, or error handling, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid paths/properties, or performance implications of bulk operations. It lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately communicates the bulk nature of the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when properties are set (e.g., validation, side effects), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides no information about return values or success indicators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying bulk operation through 'multiple instances', which aligns with the 'paths' array parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('property on multiple instances at once'), distinguishing it from single-instance tools like 'set_property'. However, it doesn't specify what type of 'instances' or 'property' are involved, leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource being modified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for bulk operations ('multiple instances at once'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'set_property' (for single instances) or 'mass_create_objects_with_properties' (for creation with properties). No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether it's read-only or has side effects, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, whether there are limitations on search scope, or authentication requirements. Given the complexity of search operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters completely. The description mentions 'name, type, or content patterns' which aligns with the searchType enum values, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'find' and resource 'files', specifying search criteria by 'name, type, or content patterns'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_objects' or 'search_by_property' by focusing specifically on files, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_objects', 'search_by_property', or 'get_file_tree'. It mentions search criteria but gives no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions search functionality but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, return format, or whether it's read-only (though implied by 'Find'). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and usage context, leaving significant gaps despite the concise structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds marginal value by hinting at search types ('name, class, or properties'), which aligns with the 'searchType' enum, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Find') and target ('instances'), specifying search criteria ('by name, class, or properties'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_by_property' by covering multiple search types, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_files' or other search tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_property' or 'search_files' is provided. The description implies usage for finding instances, but lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a mutation tool ('Set properties'), it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what happens if the formula fails, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or how the tool handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with a single sentence that captures the core functionality: 'Set properties using mathematical formulas and variables'. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or return values, and doesn't provide usage context relative to siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall tool understanding remains inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'mathematical formulas and variables', which loosely relates to the 'formula' and 'variables' parameters, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema fully documents all parameters (formula, paths, propertyName, variables) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't compensate with additional insights like formula syntax rules or variable usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set properties using mathematical formulas and variables'. It specifies the action (set), the target (properties), and the method (mathematical formulas and variables). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'set_property' or 'mass_set_property', which likely have different approaches to setting properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'set_property' (which might set properties directly without formulas) or 'mass_set_property' (which might handle multiple properties at once), nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or ideal scenarios for using mathematical formulas over other methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a write operation ('Set'), implying mutation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error handling, or whether changes are reversible. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of property names or value types, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('a property on any Roblox instance'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mass_set_property' or 'set_calculated_property', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mass_set_property' for bulk operations or 'set_calculated_property' for computed values. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'modify' (implying mutation) but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by succinctly conveying the tool's relative modification nature, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or practical use cases, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (e.g., 'operation' with enum values like 'add', 'paths' as array of instance paths). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Modify properties relative to their current values' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('modify') and resource ('properties'), and the 'relative' aspect distinguishes it from absolute property-setting tools like 'set_property' or 'mass_set_property' among the siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives or detail the exact scope of modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the 'relative' aspect implies it's for incremental changes rather than absolute setting, it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to tools like 'set_property' or 'set_calculated_property'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'duplication' implies a write operation, the description doesn't specify permissions needed, whether this creates new objects or modifies existing ones, error conditions, or what happens when duplicates exceed limits. The 'smart' aspect is vague without concrete behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying key features (naming, positioning, property variations) without unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested objects in the options parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'smart' means operationally, doesn't cover error handling or constraints, and provides minimal guidance for a tool that appears to perform batch creation operations with multiple configuration options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'automatic naming, positioning, and property variations' which aligns with the 'options' parameter's subproperties in the schema. However, with 67% schema description coverage and 3 total parameters, the description doesn't fully explain the 'instancePath' and 'count' parameters beyond what the schema provides. It adds some context about the 'options' parameter's purpose but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'smart duplication with automatic naming, positioning, and property variations', which specifies the verb (duplicate) and key features. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'mass_duplicate' tool, which appears to be a similar duplication operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mass_duplicate' or other creation tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases that would help an agent choose between similar tools in the server.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but fails to mention any constraints like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the place doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It specifies what data is retrieved but omits critical details like return format, error handling, or how 'game settings' are structured. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves the agent under-informed about execution and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable here since no parameters exist, but it could have mentioned implicit inputs like context or defaults. Baseline is 4 as per rules for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the target resources ('place ID, name, and game settings'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_class_info' or 'get_instance_properties', which might retrieve similar metadata but for different entities, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'get_' tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'children' entails (e.g., depth, format). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the description's clear purpose, it is minimally complete. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits and return values, which could hinder optimal agent usage in more complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'serviceName' documented as 'Optional specific service name to query'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target resources ('available Roblox services and their children'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_class_info' or 'get_instance_children', which might also retrieve hierarchical information, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_class_info', 'get_instance_children', and 'get_project_structure' that might overlap in retrieving hierarchical data, the description lacks context on specific use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it creates a new object but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new Roblox object instance') and adds a key limitation ('basic, without properties'). Zero waste, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral context like rate limits or side effects, leaving gaps for agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of class names beyond schema's 'Part', 'Script', 'Folder'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Roblox object instance'), specifying it creates a basic object without properties. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_object_with_properties' by noting the 'basic, without properties' limitation, though not explicitly naming the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating basic objects, with 'without properties' hinting at when to use this vs. 'create_object_with_properties'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or when to choose alternatives like 'mass_create_objects' for bulk operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'basic, without properties' which hints at limitations, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, whether creation is atomic, error handling for partial failures, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create multiple objects at once') and adds a crucial qualifier ('basic, without properties'). There is zero wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, permissions, and how it differs operationally from similar tools like 'mass_create_objects_with_properties'. The context signals indicate a simple parameter structure, but the behavioral gaps are significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'objects' parameter and its nested structure (className, name, parent). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying objects are created without properties, which is already suggested by the tool name and description context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create multiple objects') and resource ('objects'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'basic, without properties'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'mass_create_objects_with_properties' beyond the 'without properties' qualifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for batch creation of simple objects without properties, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'create_object' (single vs. multiple) or 'mass_create_objects_with_properties' (basic vs. with properties). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by highlighting the maxDepth parameter's impact on exploration depth and recommending values, but it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like performance implications, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'complete game hierarchy' entails in terms of data structure or format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance for the key parameter. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and key parameter usage but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at what 'complete game hierarchy' returns, but it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the importance of maxDepth and providing usage recommendations (e.g., 'Set higher values like 5-10 for comprehensive exploration'), which goes beyond the schema's default and description. However, it doesn't elaborate on the other parameters (path, scriptsOnly) beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get complete game hierarchy' specifies both the verb ('Get') and resource ('complete game hierarchy'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file_tree' or 'get_instance_children', which likely retrieve similar hierarchical data but with different scopes or formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by emphasizing the importance of the maxDepth parameter and recommending values (5-10) for comprehensive exploration. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, such as comparing it to 'get_file_tree' or 'get_instance_children', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about safety ('safely') and platform restriction ('Studio only'), but does not cover other critical behaviors such as error handling, permission requirements, or whether the change is reversible. This leaves gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Safely set the source code') and includes essential constraints without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clarifying purpose and usage context concisely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and key constraints but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error responses, side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies script source, more context on safety implications or success indicators would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('instancePath' and 'source'). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as syntax examples or constraints on source code format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('set the source code'), target resource ('of a script object'), and key constraints ('without using loadstring', 'Studio only'). It precisely distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'set_property' or 'get_script_source' by focusing on script source modification with safety and platform limitations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage ('Studio only') and a key constraint ('without using loadstring'), which implicitly guides when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'set_property' for other properties or 'get_script_source' for reading, nor does it mention prerequisites like script existence or permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/boshyxd/robloxstudio-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server