Roblox BedWars Creative Scripting Tool MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_project_script

Saves Lua code as a named file in a project, choosing sync or drafts folder, for Roblox BedWars Creative scripting.

Instructions

Save supplied Lua code in a named MCP-managed project under scripts/projects/. Inputs: project_name (required string, a project name rather than a directory path); file_name (required string, relative .lua path inside the chosen section); code (required string, Lua source); sync (optional boolean, default true: choose sync/; false: choose drafts/). Effects: creates parent folders and atomically replaces the file without a backup; does not prepare project metadata, validate, or directly upload. Returns: project_name, project-relative file_name, absolute path, sync selection, and bytes.

Context: Choose for a project identified by name. Use create_project first if its brief, manifest, and starter main.lua are needed. sync is a folder selector, not an upload action. For an arbitrary directory use create_directory_script. To upload this layout, connect the project directory with glob_pattern='sync//*.lua'; the usual scripts//*.lua glob does not select sync/. An existing matching watcher may upload the saved file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`sync`	No
`file_name`	Yes
`project_name`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses parent-folder creation, atomic replacement without backup, no metadata preparation, no validation, no direct upload, and possible watcher upload. The sync parameter is clarified as a folder selector rather than an upload 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 front-loaded with purpose and then organized into Inputs, Effects, Returns, and Context. Despite being detailed, every section adds operational value: parameter semantics, side effects, output details, prerequisites, and upload guidance.

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?

Given a complex create-script operation with four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, side effects, return values, alternatives, and upload limitations. The output schema handles structured return shape, and the description still summarizes returned fields.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must define parameter meaning, and it does: project_name is a project name not a path, file_name is a relative .lua path inside the chosen section, code is Lua source, and sync defaults true to sync/ or false to drafts/.

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 a specific verb and resource: save Lua code in a named MCP-managed project under scripts/projects/. It clearly distinguishes itself from create_directory_script and create_script by naming project-name scope and MCP-managed layout.

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?

It explicitly says to choose this for a project identified by name, directs users to create_project first when project metadata is needed, and names create_directory_script for arbitrary directories. It also explains the upload glob caveat, so the agent knows how this tool fits into the workflow.

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

Deploy Server