Roblox Studio MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as search_files, search_objects, and search_by_property, or get_file_tree and get_project_structure. This creates ambiguity and makes it difficult to choose the correct tool for a given task.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, set_, create_, delete_, mass_), but a few exceptions like 'undo', 'redo', and 'raycast' break the convention. Overall, the naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count1/5
With 52 tools, the server far exceeds the recommended range for a coherent toolset. Many tools are redundant or overly granular, making the set feel bloated and difficult to navigate.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers a wide range of Roblox Studio operations: object lifecycle, properties, scripts, terrain, selection, and batching. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit rename or publish tools), but core workflows are well supported.
Average 3.5/5 across 45 of 52 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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.json to 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

Behavior1/5
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 only states the purpose without any details on side effects, return format, performance, permissions, or read-only guarantees. This is a significant gap for a search tool that could have varied behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It gets straight to the point, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool. It could be more informative, but the structure itself is efficient.
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?
Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is too bare to be complete. It does not indicate what the search returns (e.g., IDs, objects, names), whether it is exact or fuzzy matching, or how it relates to sibling search tools. In the absence of annotations, this leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (propertyName and propertyValue), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'specific property values', so it does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema baseline.
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 'Find objects with specific property values' clearly states the action (find), the resource (objects), and the criterion (specific property values). It distinguishes from siblings like search_files (which searches files) and search_objects (potentially broader search), though it could be more specific about what 'objects' refers to in this context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. Siblings like search_objects might overlap, but the description does not clarify when one should be chosen over the other.
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 must carry the full burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose permissions, failure modes, or the meaning of 'children'. No side effects or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It efficiently states the purpose but could be enriched with additional useful context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives an adequate overview of what will be returned (services and their children). It does not explain potential errors, what 'available' means, or the exact structure of the response, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.
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?
The single parameter 'serviceName' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to reiterate it. However, the description also does not add any insight beyond the schema, such as how the parameter filters results or what happens if it's omitted.
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 tool retrieves 'available Roblox services and their children', specifying a concrete resource. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_instance_children, but the resource type (services) is unique enough to be understood.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_instance_children or get_descendants. It simply states what it does without mentioning context, exclusions, or alternative tools.
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 the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation without any consequences, safety notes, or effects on the original instance. It doesn't mention whether this is destructive, requires permissions, or how 'smart' behavior differs from regular duplication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action, though it sacrifices useful details for brevity, which is acceptable given the simplicity of the description length.
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?
The tool has a complex schema with nested operations and options, but the description fails to explain what 'smart' means, how multiple duplications are structured, or any edge cases. Without annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and constraints.
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%, so the schema already documents the 'duplications' parameter and its nested fields. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the name 'duplications' and the phrase 'at once', matching the baseline score of 3.
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 'Perform multiple smart duplications at once', which conveys the action (perform) and resource (smart duplications) while implying batch processing. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'smart_duplicate' by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'at once', though it doesn't elaborate on what 'smart' entails.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'smart_duplicate' or 'mass_create_objects'. It neither states explicit conditions nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and the word 'multiple'.
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 the full burden of explaining behavior. It mentions 'return hit information' but doesn't disclose what that includes, how filtering works, coordinate systems, or limitations. The schema reveals filterType and filterPaths, but the description omits any mention of these behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and result, making it highly concise and easy to scan.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only gives the basic operation. It doesn't explain return value details, filter behavior, or any important contextual information for a raycast operation, which is incomplete given the tool's complexity.
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 each parameter having a clear description (origin, direction, filterType, filterPaths). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool casts a ray and returns hit information, which is a specific verb+resource pair. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but raycasting is a distinct operation among the listed tools, so it's clear enough for basic identification.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about expected use cases. It simply states what it does without any 'when' or 'when not' information.
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. It only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention that it can modify multiple paths, effect of formula evaluation, error handling, or side effects. This is minimal and insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It earns a high score for brevity, though it lacks a structured breakdown of components.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and ambiguous relationship to similar tools, the description is too thin. It fails to mention that it operates on multiple paths, what the formula variables can do, return behavior, or how it relates to set_property and mass_set_property.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'mathematical formulas' and 'variables' which aligns with the formula and variables parameters, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. No extra semantics are provided.
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 tool's function: setting properties using mathematical formulas and variables. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_property or mass_set_property by specifically mentioning formulas and variables, though it could be more explicit about 'calculated' or 'computed' properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as set_property, mass_set_property, or set_relative_property. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says "Set a property" and does not mention side effects, error behavior, permission requirements, reversibility, or any other operational traits. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
Despite having a well-documented schema, the description lacks crucial context: it does not clarify that this tool sets a regular property (not an attribute), that it operates on a single instance (unlike mass_set_property), or what happens on invalid property names or read-only properties. No annotations or output schema exist to fill these gaps, making the description inadequate for nuanced tool selection.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (instancePath, propertyName, propertyValue) already documented. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 with a specific verb and resource: "Set a property on any Roblox instance." It is unambiguous about the core operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mass_set_property or set_attribute, which reduces the score slightly.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mass_set_property, set_attribute, or set_calculated_property. There are no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions provided, leaving the agent without 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, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'automatic' behaviors but does not explain side effects, whether the original is preserved, limits on counts, or how variations are applied. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though 'smart' is somewhat promotional. It is appropriately brief for a high-level overview.
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?
The tool has three parameters including a complex nested options object, yet the description offers no details on return values, error cases, or practical usage. Sibling tools like mass_duplicate suggest a richer context is needed. The description is a teaser rather than a complete guide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% and the description maps loosely to options fields (namePattern, positionOffset, propertyVariations). However, it adds little beyond the schema's own property descriptions; it does not explain patterns or inter-parameter relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 indicates the tool performs duplication with automatic naming, positioning, and property variations, which distinguishes it from plain duplication tools like clone_object. However, it lacks a direct verb phrase (e.g., 'Creates multiple copies') and the word 'smart' is somewhat vague.
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 like mass_duplicate or clone_object. The description implies use for variations but does not state exclusions or appropriate contexts.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It states it is a batch mutation but gives no information about atomicity, partial-failure behavior, permissions required, reversibility, or return values. This is a significant gap for a bulk write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. For a simple tool with a clear name, this is acceptable.
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 batch operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial context like error handling on individual paths, whether the operation is transactional, and what the return value indicates. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptive names and types for all three parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely rephrasing that the same property is applied to multiple instances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 ('Set'), the resource ('property'), and the scope ('multiple instances'), which distinguishes it from single-instance 'set_property' and read-oriented 'mass_get_property'. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not name the exact parameter semantics (e.g., using paths).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: when you need to apply the same property value across multiple instances. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like 'set_property' (single) or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is minimal viable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral implications such as whether the operation is destructive to children, preserves properties, or has atomicity constraints. For a mutating operation, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is clear and free of filler. It effectively communicates the core purpose without excess.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the description is too sparse given the lack of annotations and output schema. It doesn't relate to sibling tools or explain any return behavior, leaving the agent with only the most basic understanding.
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?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. It passes the baseline for semantic coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'move' and identifies the resource as a 'Roblox instance' with a target 'new parent', clearly stating the function. It distinguishes from siblings like mass_reparent by implying a single instance, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with mass_reparent or clone/delete. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description.
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. It states that creation occurs, but gives no details about side effects, error conditions, permissions, return value, or behavior when the parent path is invalid. This is minimal transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the creation workflow, return value, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent underinformed for effective invocation.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'initial properties' does not add information beyond the schema's property descriptions. There is no additional semantic detail for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear action ('Create a new Roblox object instance') and adds the differentiator 'with initial properties', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_object. This is a specific verb+resource with scope.
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 such as create_object or mass_create_objects_with_properties. The description implies usage through the name but does not state exclusions or alternatives.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete', but does not disclose if deletion is permanent, whether children are also deleted, or if any safety mechanisms exist. This is a significant gap 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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core purpose. Every word earns its place, and no redundant information is present.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as undoability, effect on children, or any authorization requirements, making it insufficient for safe autonomous operation.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter (instancePath) with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, matching the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (Roblox object instance). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like create_object, clone_object, and reparent_object, making its purpose unambiguous.
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. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it can be undone via the 'undo' sibling, or any prerequisites for deletion, leaving the agent without context for appropriate 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a basic action. It does not mention return format, whether inherited members are included, or any limitations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.
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, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and every word contributes to the purpose.
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?
The tool is simple, but without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain return values or behaviors. It only states 'Get available properties/methods', leaving ambiguity about the exact output and whether there are any side effects. This is a clear gap for an agent relying solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'className', and its schema description already states 'Roblox class name'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available properties/methods') with a clear scope ('Roblox classes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_instance_properties by focusing on class definitions rather than instance-level data.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback tools, or contextual cues that would help an agent decide to invoke this.
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 must disclose behavioral traits but only restates the purpose. It does not mention read-only behavior, search semantics (e.g., exact vs fuzzy), result limits, error handling, or the relationship between query and propertyName. The agent cannot infer side effects or edge cases beyond the obvious 'find' action.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancies. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not indicate return format, whether results are paginated, how the search works for different searchTypes, or any constraints. For a tool with three parameters and many sibling search tools, this lacks essential contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mapping 'name, class, or properties' to the searchType enum, but it does not clarify query syntax, wildcard behavior, or how propertyName interacts with searchType beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Find instances by name, class, or properties'. It uses a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource ('instances'), and specifies the three search dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_files (for files) and search_by_property (property-only).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_by_property or get_instance_properties. It does not mention exclusions, preferred use cases, or reference sibling tools, leaving the agent without adequate decision support.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not mention idempotency, side effects, error conditions, or whether tags are overwritten. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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, clear sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, a one-sentence description is adequate but lacks richer context such as behavior on duplicates or exact return behavior. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.
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 both parameters (tagName and instancePath) documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Add a CollectionService tag to a Roblox instance.' It identifies a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like remove_tag and get_tags.
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 such as remove_tag or get_tags. The description simply states the operation without context 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the clone includes all children, which is valuable, but it omits other important traits: whether the original is left intact (though implied by 'clone'), whether the new instance is returned, how naming conflicts are handled, or any side effects. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and clearly conveys the core purpose. There is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with a high schema-coverage and clear purpose, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, given the context of many sibling tools focusing on duplication/creation, the description lacks usage guidance and return-value information, making it only minimally complete.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'to a parent', which aligns with the newParent parameter, but it does not provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. No compensation is needed because coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Clone' and the resource 'Roblox instance', with an important qualifier 'with all children' and destination 'to a parent'. This distinguishes it from related tools like create_object (which creates new instances) and reparent_object (which moves existing instances). The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as smart_duplicate, mass_duplicate, or create_object. It only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be chosen. No exclusions or alternative references 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get all attributes' and does not mention return format, error behavior, whether it reads inherited attributes, or any side effects. This is minimal and lacks transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a minimal tool with one parameter and no output schema, but the description still leaves out details about the return value (e.g., whether it returns a dictionary, list, or table) and any edge cases. It is adequately complete for a simple read operation but could be slightly more informative.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'instancePath', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate given the high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get all attributes') on a specific resource ('Roblox instance'), and the word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_attribute' which implies fetching a single attribute. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_attribute' or other instance inspection tools. It simply states what it does without any contextual or exclusionary information.
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. It hints at traversal behavior via maxDepth (default 3, recommended 5-10) but does not disclose return format, performance implications, or whether the hierarchy includes hidden objects. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get'.
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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the purpose. The IMPORTANT note about maxDepth is concise and actionable, earning its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining what the hierarchy looks like. It does not mention the return structure or edge cases, and lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. However, the maxDepth guidance adds useful context, making it minimally complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the maxDepth recommendation already present in the schema but does not add substantial new meaning for path or scriptsOnly parameters, nor does it clarify their behavior beyond the schema.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving the game hierarchy, which is distinct from file tree or place info tools. However, the word 'complete' is slightly misleading given the maxDepth default of 3, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_descendants.
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?
The description provides parameter guidance for maxDepth but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_descendants or get_instance_children. No explicit context or exclusions are given 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 the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing what happens to the original instances (e.g., moved or copied), whether they are reparented, or any permission requirements. The optional 'groupName' and default 'groupType' are not discussed behaviorally.
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?
A single, concise sentence effectively conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant words or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., whether instances are moved or copied, effects on existing hierarchy) and does not mention return values or error conditions. It is adequate for basic use but incomplete for nuanced contexts.
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% (paths, groupName, groupType all have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or usage notes, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Group') and the objects affected ('multiple instances') along with the destination container types ('Model or Folder'). It is specific and effectively distinguishes this tool from its inverse sibling 'ungroup_objects'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reparent_object' or 'create_object'. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where grouping is appropriate.
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 disclosure. It indicates mutation ('Modify') but does not describe side effects, error handling, reversibility, or how operations apply across multiple paths. This is a notable gap for a modification tool, as the agent is left unaware of potential impacts.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently, earning its place as a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a moderate parameter count, no output schema, and several sibling tools. The description plus schema provide the basics, but the lack of guidance on return values, error behavior, and usage context relative to siblings leaves gaps in completeness.
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?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including enum details for operation and component. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema already handles the heavy lifting.
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 'Modify properties relative to their current values' clearly states the action (modify properties) and the distinctive scope (relative adjustment), which differentiates it from siblings like set_property and set_calculated_property. While concise, it effectively communicates the core purpose without being a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for relative modifications, suggesting when an agent should choose this over absolute set_property. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it reference alternative tools, leaving room for confusion among the many sibling tools.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Set the current selection' without clarifying whether it replaces the existing selection, how paths are resolved, or what errors may occur. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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, direct sentence with no superfluous content. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description provides the basic action but omits important context such as whether the selection is replaced or appended, and the behavior with invalid paths. Given the low complexity and lack of annotations, it is minimally complete but still has gaps.
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?
The input schema fully documents the 'paths' parameter with 'Array of instance paths to select', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('current selection in Roblox Studio') along with the target ('specific instances'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_selection, which reads the selection instead of modifying it.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. It simply states the function without contextual advice, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'single round-trip' and does not disclose execution order, atomicity, partial failure behavior, or side effects for the various operation types, which is critical for a batch 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are necessary and add distinct information without redundancy.
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 batch tool that can create, delete, reparent, clone, and set properties, the description omits important behavioral details such as return values, operation ordering, atomicity guarantees, and per-operation data requirements. This leaves significant gaps despite the clear basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates the schema's type/data structure. It does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes multiple operations in a single round-trip, listing supported operation types (setProperty, createObject, deleteObject, reparent, clone). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from individual-operation sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: use this for multiple operations to save round-trips. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual tools or when not to use it, such as when atomicity or partial failure handling is required.
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 must carry full disclosure burden. It only states the action without detailing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., parts being anchored), error conditions, or whether the constraint is added to the model hierarchy. The behavioral impact is largely undisclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose with no redundancy or wasted words. It is extremely concise and directly to the point.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and usage context more thoroughly. It lacks information on what the tool returns, input validation, or any constraints/requirements. The complexity is low, but completeness is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.
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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description does add minimal context by indicating the parts are BaseParts, but it does not explain path formats or how the constraint relates to the parameters beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a WeldConstraint between two BaseParts, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_object by focusing on a specialized constraint type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need a weld constraint) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like create_object or any exclusions. No when/when-not guidance is provided beyond the inherent purpose.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and outcome, without mentioning any quirks, error behavior, or limitations (e.g., whether it only returns immediate children, what happens for invalid paths).
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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (child instances and class types). It could be slightly more explicit about whether 'children' means immediate children, but overall it is sufficient.
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?
The schema fully documents the single parameter with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds a slight semantic hint that the instancePath should be a parent instance, but it does not elaborate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (child instances from a Roblox parent instance) along with the returned data (class types). It differentiates from related tools like get_descendants by specifying 'children' rather than all descendants.
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 such as get_descendants or search_objects. The description implies a simple context (querying children of an instance) but offers no exclusions or suggestions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scope ('currently selected') and implies a read-only operation, but does not describe the return format, behavior when nothing is selected, or whether order/presence is guaranteed. This is acceptable for a simple getter but lacks depth.
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, short sentence ('Get all currently selected objects') with no redundant or extraneous content. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it extremely concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It clearly identifies the resource but does not specify the return type (e.g., object IDs, references) or edge-case behavior, making it minimally adequate but not fully complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist; the baseline of 4 applies since there is no parameter information to convey.
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 'Get all currently selected objects' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currently selected objects'), clearly conveying the tool's function. It is distinct from siblings like set_selection, but does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming alternatives or contrasting with other getters.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_objects or get_attributes. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the phrase 'currently selected objects'.
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 responsibility for disclosing behavior. It relies on the verb 'Get' to imply read-only, but does not mention return format, tag matching semantics, or potential for many results due to 'all instances'. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation safety net.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core operation without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and implies the return value (instances). It is slightly incomplete in not specifying response shape or edge cases, but given the low complexity, it is sufficient for an agent.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the only parameter tagName as 'Name of the tag to search for' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'all instances' qualified by 'with a specific tag', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_tags (which retrieves tags) and search_objects (general search).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as search_objects or get_tags. It only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
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 must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states that multiple objects are created with initial properties, but gives no details on atomicity, failure handling, side effects, or return values. For a mass creation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that delivers the core purpose without any filler. It is easy to parse and immediately comprehensible.
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?
Despite having a 100% schema coverage, the tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description does not compensate with usage guidance, behavioral details, or error semantics. For a batch creation tool with a nested parameter, the description is too minimal to fully inform an agent.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including the nested structure of the 'objects' array. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely echoing 'initial properties' which maps to the 'properties' field. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create multiple objects at once with initial properties' clearly identifies the action (create), scope (multiple objects), and distinguishing feature (initial properties). It differentiates from siblings like create_object and mass_create_objects by specifying both batching and property initialization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'at once' implies batch usage, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_object or mass_create_objects. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving usage context mostly to inference from the name.
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. It states 'remove', which implies destructiveness, but it does not disclose whether the operation is undoable, whether it affects objects on the terrain, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic usage. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., destructiveness, reversibility) and no mention of alternatives leaves some gaps, making it adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (center and size) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clear (remove) terrain in a region' uses a specific verb ('clear' with 'remove' clarifying), identifies the resource (terrain), and scopes the action (in a region). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fill_terrain (opposite action) and delete_object (objects rather than terrain).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by clearly stating the action, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fill_terrain or delete_object). No exclusions or conditions are provided, so an agent must infer context from the tool name and siblings.
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 does not mention side effects, error conditions, permissions, or return values, only that it creates an instance. The 'without properties' qualifier offers limited context about limitations, but the overall behavioral transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the schema fully covers parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., path to the created object) or handle error scenarios. It does disambiguate from more complex creation tools, but lacks some completeness for operational context.
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?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (className, parent, and optional name), so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create), the resource (new Roblox object instance), and the scope ('basic, without properties'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_object_with_properties and mass_create_objects by specifying this is a single, property-less creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without properties' implicitly signals this is for simple creation, and sibling names like create_object_with_properties suggest the alternative. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no direct naming of alternatives.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the operation but does not reveal whether the fill is destructive, replaces existing terrain, is reversible (e.g., via undo), or requires any permissions. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that names the action, resource, material, and shape options. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's core function without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the central operation, it is thin for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It omits behavioral context (e.g., whether it overwrites existing terrain, if it returns a success indicator, any side effects) that would help the agent plan its use. The rich schema mitigates some gaps but cannot fully compensate.
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?
The schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, including nested X/Y/Z fields and the shape enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('fill'), the target ('region of terrain'), the material, and the shape options, distinguishing it from siblings like clear_terrain (which removes terrain) and object creation tools. It also mentions the available shapes, matching the enum in the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case of filling a terrain region but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like clear_terrain or create_object. There are no exclusions or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and operation.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not address what happens if the attribute is missing, whether the operation is read-only, or any error behavior. This leaves the agent uncertain about edge cases.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the verb and object. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks behavioral details such as return value on missing attributes or error handling. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but does not fully prepare the agent for edge cases.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both instancePath and attributeName. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a single attribute value from a Roblox instance, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from get_attributes (plural) and set_attribute by emphasizing 'single', making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'single attribute' implies the tool is for one attribute at a time, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of get_attributes, set_attribute, or delete_attribute. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage context is implied rather than stated.
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. It only says 'Get all properties' and gives no information about return format, error behavior, or whether it is read-only. This lack of disclosure is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description clearly states the action. However, it lacks details about the return structure or potential error conditions, which is important given the absence of an output schema. It is adequate but incomplete for full self-containment.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single parameter instancePath with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does 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 'all properties of a specific Roblox instance', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_attributes or get_instance_children. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (retrieve all properties of a Roblox instance) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when to prefer this over similar tools, leaving some ambiguity.
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, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid instance path) or the return format. However, for a simple getter, the description is minimally adequate.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's core function. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not specify the return type (e.g., list of tag strings) or error behavior, which would be helpful for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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%, so the parameter instancePath is already fully documented. The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all CollectionService tags' on a specific Roblox instance. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_tag, remove_tag, and get_tagged (which finds instances with a tag rather than tags on an instance).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_tagged as the opposite use case or any prerequisites such as requiring a valid Roblox instance path. The usage is only implied by the description.
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 only states the batch read intent, but does not mention return format, behavior when some instances lack the property, partial failures, or performance characteristics — important for a batch 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?
A single, concise sentence that is immediately understandable and front-loaded with the action. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 simple parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic invocation but lacks critical context such as expected output (e.g., a map of path to property value) and how errors are handled. It covers the core purpose but leaves operational details unaddressed.
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 clear descriptions for both paths and propertyName. The description adds a minor extra ('same property', 'multiple instances') but does not provide deeper semantic context beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly names a specific operation: 'Get the same property from multiple instances at once.' The verb 'get' plus the resource 'property from multiple instances' precisely distinguishes it from siblings like get_instance_properties (all properties of one instance) and mass_set_property (batch write).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from multiple instances at once' implies a batch use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_instance_properties or search_by_property, nor any exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core removal action and does not cover potential side effects, error handling, idempotency, prerequisites like existing tags, or permissions required. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and target. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but with no annotations or output schema, the description fails to mention return values or error conditions. It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete when considering edge cases like non-existent tags or invalid instance paths.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions, including a dot-notation example. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema contains, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'Remove' and the resource 'CollectionService tag from a Roblox instance', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_tag, get_tags, and get_tagged. It is immediately obvious what action this tool performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The tool's purpose is self-evident, so when to use it is implied, but there is no mention of when not to use it or how it compares to related tag 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing side effects, permissions, or errors. It only lists the data fields returned, similar to the name, and does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or any other behavioral trait.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter getter, conveying the essential information in a compact form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, annotations, or parameters, the description sufficiently lists the return fields (ID, name, game settings). While it does not describe response structure or error handling, the tool's simplicity makes this adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 applies for 0-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'place' and enumerates the exact fields returned (ID, name, game settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_class_info or get_attributes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name 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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without mentioning atomicity, partial failure handling, permissions, or side effects. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and scope.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a multi-operation tool. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether the operation is all-or-nothing, or what happens if some paths fail. This leaves important behavioral context missing.
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?
The input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (paths and newParent), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond confirming the batch nature, so it meets the baseline for parameter clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Move'), clearly identifies the resource ('multiple instances'), and specifies the destination ('to a new parent') plus the batch nature ('at once'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'reparent_object' tool which handles a single instance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'multiple instances' and 'at once' gives clear context that this tool is for bulk reparenting operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over the single reparent_object tool or provide exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.
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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions depth limit and filters, which affect traversal, but does not disclose return format, ordering, cycle handling, or performance implications. Since it is a read operation, the lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable, but the missing return format is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex (recursive traversal) and lacks an output schema and annotations. The description provides the core functionality but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., an array of paths or object references), nor does it address edge cases like depth=0 or self-inclusion. More detail would be needed for full completeness.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for all 4 parameters, so the description need not elaborate. The description does mention class/name filters and depth limit at a high level, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('all descendants of an instance'), and specifies optional name/class filters and a depth limit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_instance_children, which likely returns only direct children.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use for recursive traversal (via 'descendants' and 'depth limit') but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over get_instance_children or search_objects. No exclusions are mentioned, but usage context is implied rather than explicit.
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 for disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states the action ('create') and the scope ('multiple', 'basic'), without revealing anything about partial failure handling, atomicity, permissions, or return value. For a mutating 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 10 words. Every word contributes to defining the purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, and the description covers the core action. However, without an output schema, the description should mention return values or error behavior, which it does not. This leaves the context slightly incomplete for an agent deciding how to handle results.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage, describing the 'objects' array and its items ('className', 'parent', 'name'). The description adds the note about 'without properties', which helps clarify what the array should not contain, but it does not add substantive syntax or format details beyond what the schema already offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create multiple objects at once' with a specific qualifier 'basic, without properties'. This verb-resource pair is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_object' or '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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'basic, without properties' provides clear context that this tool is for simple bulk creation when properties are not needed. It implies an alternative exists for property creation, but it does not explicitly name that tool or state specific when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without mentioning side effects, failure conditions, or that it changes the history state. No additional behavioral context is provided.
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?
A single, direct sentence that fully describes the action. No unnecessary words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, it is minimally viable, but lacks any guidance on when to use it (beyond implication) and does not mention what happens if there is no undone action. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not enhanced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but with no parameters to document, it is not lacking.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the exact operation: 'Redo the last undone action' and references the Roblox API (ChangeHistoryService:Redo). This distinguishes it from its sibling 'undo' and any other tools, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after an undo, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'undo' or any prerequisites/conditions (e.g., there must be an undone action). This is implied rather than stated.
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It clarifies the domain (Roblox Studio instances) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what results are returned, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and 22 words, with the action and resource front-loaded. The parenthetical note is essential and earns its place. There is zero fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simply structured tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description lacks explicit return-value information. The note about not being a filesystem search is valuable, but without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left to guess what a successful search returns.
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 both 'query' and 'searchType' thoroughly described. The description's mention of 'name, class type, or script content' mirrors the searchType enum, adding no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('Roblox instances') with three search dimensions: name, class type, or script content. The note explicitly disambiguates this from local filesystem search, which is a critical distinction given the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit 'when-not' by stating it searches Roblox Studio instances, not local filesystem files. This helps an agent avoid misusing the tool for filesystem searches. However, it does not mention alternative tools like search_objects or search_by_property, so the guidance is incomplete.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects like whether the attribute is created if absent, whether existing values are overwritten, error conditions (e.g., nonexistent instance), or any permission requirements. The only behavioral detail is the list of supported types, which is more of a parameter constraint than a disclosure of side effects.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and object, and the second sentence concisely enumerates supported types. No redundant or filler content exists; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks depth. It explains what the tool does and lists accepted types, but does not cover critical context such as error handling, behavior when attributes already exist or are created, or any prerequisites for the instance path. Given the tool's moderate complexity and schema richness, more behavioral context would be needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all parameters including structural examples for Vector3, Color3, and UDim2. The description adds explicit support for primitive types (string, number, boolean) that are not listed in the schema's valueType hint, clarifying that these can be used without a type hint. This adds semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Set an attribute value on a Roblox instance.' This distinguishes it from siblings like set_property, get_attribute, and delete_attribute, which operate on different resources or actions. The supported types add useful scope without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_property or handle attribute-specific edge cases. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are provided, so the agent must infer from the tool name and sibling context.
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 deletion action but omits any details about irreversibility, side effects, or behavior when the attribute does not exist. For a destructive mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has only two fully documented parameters, and no output schema, so the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks safety caveats or side-effect details, but for a straightforward deletion operation with full schema coverage, it is mostly complete.
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 both parameters (instancePath and attributeName) fully documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an attribute from a Roblox instance' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('attribute from a Roblox instance'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like set_attribute and get_attribute, which handle different operations on attributes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever an attribute needs to be removed from a Roblox instance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough, and the sibling tool set (e.g., get_attribute, set_attribute) suggests the intended scope without causing confusion.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'axis-aligned' nature of the bounding box, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, return format, or any side effects (though 'get' implies none). This is acceptable but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the target, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is almost complete. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and input. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return structure of the bounding box, but this is heavily implied by the tool name and description.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema says for instancePath, as both mention 'Model or BasePart'. No additional syntax or format details are provided, so a 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the axis-aligned bounding box of a Model or BasePart, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling getter tools by focusing on the bounding box specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need an axis-aligned bounding box, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like get_instance_properties or get_descendants. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided, but the context is reasonably clear for a simple query 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 must carry the full burden. It states the action and the underlying service, but does not disclose side effects, failure cases (e.g., if no actions to undo), or whether this is a destructive operation. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Undo the last action') and includes a valuable technical reference. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and scope. It omits behavior details like return values or edge cases (e.g., empty undo history), but for a straightforward command, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so schema description coverage is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Thus it meets the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Undo the last action in Roblox Studio', which is a specific verb ('Undo') and resource ('Roblox Studio'). It also names the underlying API (ChangeHistoryService:Undo), adding technical context. This fully distinguishes it from sibling 'redo' and other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: the tool undoes the last action, and no explicit guidance is given about when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'redo' or any conditions under which this should be used, but the intended use case is easy to infer from the clear purpose.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal important indexing details (1-indexed, inclusive ranges) and the prerequisite to use numberedSource, but it does not mention mutation implications, error behavior, or reversibility.
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 two sentences, with the purpose stated first and a crucial usage note second. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides essential context like line indexing and the get_script_source dependency, but it omits potential failure scenarios or undo behavior. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully comprehensive.
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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including the 1-indexed and inclusive-range details, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The description restates the numberedSource guidance but does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool replaces specific lines in a Roblox script, with the explicit qualifier 'without rewriting the entire source,' which distinguishes it from whole-script replacements like set_script_source. It satisfies the 'specific verb+resource' standard and stands out from sibling tools such as insert and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the primary use case of targeted line replacement and gives a critical prerequisite: use the 'numberedSource' field from get_script_source to identify the correct line numbers. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like insert_script_lines or delete_script_lines, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
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. It discloses the critical behavior that line numbers must come from numberedSource, which is a non-obvious trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, requires permissions, or what side effects occur (e.g., modifying the script in place). For a mutation tool, this is a moderate disclosure. More explicit behavioral details would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence is an important usage caveat written in all caps, making it stand out. No redundant info; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the core action and a key usage requirement (numberedSource), but it omits details about what happens on success, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. Given the tool's simplicity, these gaps are acceptable but not fully complete.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the instruction about using numberedSource, which is already in the afterLine parameter description. It does not add new semantic meaning to the parameters; it merely reinforces an existing warning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Insert new lines into a Roblox script at a specific position.' This specifies the verb (insert), resource (a Roblox script), and location (specific position). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_script_lines or edit_script_lines by focusing on insertion. The 'specific position' hint aligns with the afterLine parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a crucial usage guideline: 'Use the "numberedSource" field from get_script_source to identify the correct line numbers.' This tells the agent to first call get_script_source and use its output for the afterLine parameter, ensuring correct line targeting. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like edit_script_lines or set_script_source, but it gives clear operational context for when to use this tool.
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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal the destructive nature ('delete') and warns about the correct line-number source, which is helpful. However, it does not mention that the operation modifies the script in place, potential irreversibility (though undo exists as a sibling), or any error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 sentence plus an IMPORTANT note, front-loaded with the purpose. Every word earns its place, and it is not bloated or repetitive in a way that hurts quality. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (3 parameters, all documented) and has no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. The description effectively highlights the critical prerequisite (numberedSource). However, it could be more complete by noting that the script is modified directly and possibly that changes may be permanent, but overall it is adequate for the tool's complexity.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already explains that startLine and endLine should come from 'numberedSource', and the description repeats this tip without adding new meaning. No additional parameter information is provided beyond the schema, so the score remains at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete specific lines from a Roblox script.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'lines from a Roblox script' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like edit_script_lines and insert_script_lines. The additional note about using 'numberedSource' further clarifies its unique role in line-based script manipulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage guideline: 'Use the "numberedSource" field from get_script_source to identify the correct line numbers.' This tells the user how to obtain accurate input values. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare it with alternatives like edit_script_lines, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'The code runs in the plugin context with full API access,' which conveys the powerful, potentially side-effect-laden nature of execution. It also explains how to retrieve results ('Use "return <value>" to get results back'). It does not mention error handling or safety warnings, but the 'full API access' statement effectively communicates risk.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and context. Every phrase contributes: 'Execute arbitrary Luau code', 'return the result', 'plugin context with full API access', and the return-value convention. No repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers execution context and return protocol. It highlights the killer feature (full API access) and the return mechanism. It could optionally mention error behavior or that arbitrary code may have side effects, but for an execution tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('code' and 'args'). The description adds the important convention to 'return <value>' for results, which relates to the 'code' parameter, but does not expand on 'args' beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents both parameters, the description meets the baseline without adding substantial semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Execute arbitrary Luau code in Roblox Studio and return the result.' It identifies a specific verb ('execute'), resource ('Luau code in Roblox Studio'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools that perform specific operations. The addition of 'plugin context with full API access' further distinguishes it as a general-purpose code execution tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a flexible, arbitrary-code fallback but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or provide when/when-not guidance. It states the execution context ('plugin context with full API access') and return mechanism, but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a critical behavioral note ('NOT local filesystem files'), preventing a common misuse, but does not disclose side effects (likely none) or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, with the caveat front-loaded in a NOTE. Every word contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tree retrieval with one optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context about the return type (tree structure) and operating scope. It doesn't detail the tree format, but no output schema exists, so it would benefit from a bit more, but it's adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'path' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a Roblox instance hierarchy tree, specifying the resource ('game instances') and that it operates on Studio instances rather than filesystem files, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_project_structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context for the tool's operating domain (Roblox Studio) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_instance_children or get_descendants, nor any 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior (moving children to parent) and implies the group is removed via 'dissolve'. However, it does not explicitly state whether the group itself is deleted, how properties are handled, or whether nesting is recursive. These are relevant but minor gaps for a simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the operation and its primary effect with no unnecessary words. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the intended action and result. It is sufficiently complete without needing to document return values. Minor details about recursive behavior or edge cases are not critical for typical 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?
The input schema already describes the parameter as 'Path to the Model/Folder to ungroup' with 100% coverage. The description essentially restates this ('group (Model/Folder)') without adding new details about path format or valid inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('dissolve') and resource ('group (Model/Folder)'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like group_objects and reparent_object. It unambiguously states the core operation: moving all children to the parent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: this is for dissolving a group and moving children to its parent. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context alone strongly implies the use case and differentiates from simple reparenting.
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying service (ScriptEditorService:UpdateSourceAsync) and notes it works with open editors, which is useful. However, it omits details about reversibility, permissions, or failure modes, and the open-editor requirement is somewhat vague, so transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by implementation detail and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple write tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and a behavioral constraint. It could provide more detail on error conditions or prerequisites, but overall it's reasonably complete.
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?
The schema provides descriptions for both parameters (instancePath and source) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it earns the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool replaces the entire source code of a Roblox script, using a specific verb ('Replace') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from partial-edit siblings by explicitly mentioning alternatives for partial edits, making its scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to prefer edit_script_lines, insert_script_lines, or delete_script_lines for partial edits, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also mentions the tool works with open editors, offering contextual information about applicable scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the dual return fields (source and numberedSource), explains the line-number prefix format, and suggests parameter usage for large scripts. It does not mention error behavior for invalid paths or non-script instances, but for a read-only tool this is a minor gap. The information provided is sufficient for expected use.
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 three sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, return format details, and usage guidance. There is no fluff or redundancy, 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return values and their formats. The parameter coverage is complete via the schema, and the tool's complexity is low. The provided context is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results. Minor omissions like error handling are not critical for a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), earning a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining why and when to use startLine/endLine (for scripts >1500 lines) and how numberedSource relates to line editing. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the source code of a Roblox script' and specifies the script types (LocalScript, Script, or ModuleScript). It distinguishes from sibling write/edit tools like set_script_source and edit_script_lines by focusing on retrieval. The return formats are explicitly named, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers clear guidance on when to use the numberedSource format for line-accurate editing and when to use startLine/endLine for large scripts (>1500 lines). It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools, but the read-vs-write distinction from siblings is implicit. The usage context is clear and actionable.
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:

[![robloxstudio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/code-and-relax/robloxstudio-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/code-and-relax/robloxstudio-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![robloxstudio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/code-and-relax/robloxstudio-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/code-and-relax/robloxstudio-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/code-and-relax/robloxstudio-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server