Skip to main content
Glama
okenjioxx

Roblox Executor MCP Server

by okenjioxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Assert live game state

assert-state
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify live Roblox outcomes with read-only assertions on paths, properties, attributes, GUI, distances, camera, and counts; every result includes expected/actual evidence and fails on missing data.

Instructions

VERIFY LIVE OUTCOMES in one bounded, read-only execution. Evaluate path existence, property and attribute values, effective GUI state, bounded descendant searches, custom-character distance, camera facing angle, and collection counts. Every result includes expected/actual evidence and errors. Missing, unreadable, or incomplete state always fails instead of being mistaken for success. Use this after actions and consume aggregate.passed, passRatio, and confidence as proof of the real outcome. Signature: { assertions: {{ id: string, kind: any, path: string } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string, property: string, expected: string | number | boolean } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string, property: string, expected: string | number | boolean } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string, property: string, expected: string, caseSensitive: any? } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string, property: string, expected: number } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string, property: string, expected: number } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string, attribute: string, expected: string | number | boolean } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string, expected: any?, effective: any? } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string, expected: any? } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string, selector: { by: any, value: string } | { by: any, value: string, match: any?, caseSensitive: any? } | { by: any, value: string, match: any?, caseSensitive: any? }, expected: any? } | { id: string, kind: any, targetPath: string, operator: "at-most" | "at-least", distance: number, playerName: string?, characterPath: string?, rootPath: string? } | { id: string, kind: any, targetPath: string, maxAngleDegrees: any?, cameraPath: string? } | { id: string, kind: any, path: string, scope: any?, operator: "equals" | "not-equals" | "greater" | "less" | "at-least" | "at-most", count: number, selector: { by: any, value: string } | { by: any, value: string, match: any?, caseSensitive: any? } | { by: any, value: string, match: any?, caseSensitive: any? }? }}, scanLimit: any?, readBudget: any?, timeoutMs: any?, threadContext: number? }. Phase: verify; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only. Requires: active-client. Produces: grounded-evidence, per-assertion evidence, aggregate verification result. Safety: read-only. On failure: inspect tool-schema for exact fields, defaults, constraints, and an invocation example.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scanLimitNoMaximum descendants examined by any bounded search.
timeoutMsNoOptional per-call deadline in milliseconds; omit it to use the tool or server default.
assertionsYesPredicates evaluated together against one live-game snapshot.
readBudgetNoMaximum guarded live reads shared by the whole assertion batch.
threadContextNoOptional Roblox thread identity for this call; omit it to use the server default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0-spies.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it discloses the fail-closed semantic ("Missing, unreadable, or incomplete state always fails instead of being mistaken for success"), the bounded execution model with scanLimit/readBudget/timeout, the requires-active-client precondition, and cost=medium. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening prose is tight and front-loaded, but the enormous inline Signature block restates the input schema verbatim and dominates the description, diluting the high-value guidance. Significant redundancy that a reader must wade through.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the aggregate fields to consume (passed, passRatio, confidence) and the per-assertion evidence/error semantics, plus cost and preconditions. It stops short of full coverage of batching limits and defaults, but is close to complete for a verify-phase tool.

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 every parameter. The inline "Signature" block merely re-renders the schema shape rather than adding syntax, format, or default meaning, so the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("VERIFY LIVE OUTCOMES ... live-game snapshot") and enumerates the assertion families (path existence, property/attribute, GUI state, descendant search, character distance, camera facing, collection counts). An agent can distinguish it from the narrower verify-path-exists sibling without opening 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear timing context ("Use this after actions") and tells the agent to consume aggregate.passed/passRatio/confidence as the outcome proof. It does not, however, name alternatives such as verify-path-exists or get-game-state, so the when-not and alternative-routing guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools