Roblox MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but fails to state whether operations are read-only, what happens on failure (e.g., raycast misses), performance characteristics of expensive operations like 'scan_area', or if results are cached. The '[PRO]' prefix is unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single-line, colon-delimited list efficiently packs 13 distinct capabilities without extraneous prose. The '[PRO]' prefix adds noise, but the structure appropriately front-loads the tool's scope as a capability index.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 37 parameters across 13 distinct sub-operations and no output schema, the description adequately scopes the tool's capabilities by enumerating all supported actions. However, it omits critical behavioral context like return value structures, rate limits, or the fact that 'multi_raycast' is capped at 50 rays (which only appears in the schema).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description lists action names that correspond to the 'action' enum, reinforcing the schema, but adds no semantic guidance beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no explanation of when to use 'filterType' versus 'ignorePaths').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description lists 13 specific spatial operations (raycast, find_ground, etc.) under the header 'Spatial queries', clearly indicating this is a geometric/spatial analysis tool. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling tool 'query_instances', leaving potential ambiguity about when to use spatial queries versus general instance queries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'query_instances' for property lookup or 'manage_physics' for physics manipulation), nor does it mention prerequisites, cost implications, or action-specific requirements like 'use raycast before find_ground'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.