Skip to main content
Glama
okenjioxx

Roblox Executor MCP Server

by okenjioxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Destroy a live Instance (IRREVERSIBLE)

destroy-instance
Destructive

Permanently removes a Roblox instance from a live game using a Luau expression. Irreversible; captures path and ClassName before destruction.

Instructions

WRITES LIVE GAME STATE. Resolve a Luau expression to an Instance and permanently remove it from the game via inst:Destroy(). Destroy() unparents the instance and ALL of its descendants, disconnects their events, and locks their Parent so they can never be re-parented — the subtree is gone. The instance's full path and ClassName are captured BEFORE destruction so the response records exactly what was removed. WARNING: THIS IS IRREVERSIBLE — there is no undo; you cannot get the instance back (use clone-instance first if you might need a copy). Destroying a player's Character, a critical service child, or a script can break the running game and may replicate to the server. Only destroy instances you are certain about. Returns { Destroyed, ClassName, ok } or { error }. Signature: { instancePath: string, threadContext: number? }. Phase: act; cost=medium; idempotency=contextual-write. Requires: active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval. Produces: operation-receipt. Verify with: verify-path-exists. Safety: MUTATING; writes live game/client state. On failure: inspect tool-schema for exact fields, defaults, constraints, and an invocation example.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instancePathYesLuau expression resolving to the Instance to destroy, e.g. 'game.Workspace.UnwantedPart', 'game.Players.LocalPlayer.PlayerGui.Ad', or 'game.Workspace:FindFirstChild("Trap")'. Evaluated as `return <instancePath>`. Resolve the EXACT instance — Destroy also removes every descendant.
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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: exactly what Destroy does (unparents the subtree, disconnects descendant events, locks Parent so re-parenting is impossible), the irreversibility, and the server-replication risk of destroying Characters or script instances. It also discloses the return shape and that path/ClassName are captured before destruction.

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 warning and mutation status are correctly front-loaded, and the destroy semantics are explained efficiently. However, the trailing meta-block (Phase/cost/idempotency/Requires/Produces/On failure: inspect tool-schema...) is boilerplate, and the irreversibility warning is stated twice, so a few sentences do not fully earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract ({ Destroyed, ClassName, ok } or { error }), the mutation and replication semantics, required preconditions, and a follow-up verification tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly (including the Luau-expression evaluation and the descendant caveat). The description adds a signature recap and the reminder to resolve the EXACT instance, which is a small amount of reinforcement rather than new semantic content.

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?

States a specific verb (destroy/remove) and resource (a live Instance), explains the mechanism (inst:Destroy()), and distinguishes itself from the sibling clone-instance by naming it as the alternative. An agent can separate this from set-instance-property or create-instance without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use conditions are given: 'Only destroy instances you are certain about', 'use clone-instance first if you might need a copy', plus named prerequisites (active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval) and a verification step (verify-path-exists). The condition selecting the alternative tool is stated outright.

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