Skip to main content
Glama
boshyxd

Roblox Studio MCP Server

delete_object

Remove specific Roblox object instances by specifying their instance path using the MCP server integrated with Roblox Studio. Streamlines object management within projects.

Instructions

Delete a Roblox object instance

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instancePathYesPath to the instance to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that executes the delete_object tool by validating the instancePath and making an API request to '/api/delete-object' via the StudioHttpClient.
    async deleteObject(instancePath: string) {
      if (!instancePath) {
        throw new Error('Instance path is required for delete_object');
      }
      const response = await this.client.request('/api/delete-object', { instancePath });
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2)
          }
        ]
      };
    }
  • The input schema definition for the delete_object tool, specifying that 'instancePath' is a required string parameter.
    {
      name: 'delete_object',
      description: 'Delete a Roblox object instance',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          instancePath: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Path to the instance to delete'
          }
        },
        required: ['instancePath']
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:694-695 (registration)
    The dispatch/registration case in the MCP CallToolRequestSchema handler that maps incoming 'delete_object' calls to the RobloxStudioTools.deleteObject method.
    case 'delete_object':
      return await this.tools.deleteObject((args as any)?.instancePath as string);
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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness2/5

Given 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.

Parameters3/5

Does 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.

Purpose4/5

Does 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 Guidelines2/5

Does 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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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