Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Roblox Executor MCP Server

Roblox Executor MCP Server

by okenjioxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get function protos

get-function-protos
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Roblox functions by query and dump nested prototype debug info to inspect closure structure.

Instructions

Find a function by query and dump nested proto debug info. Signature: { query: string, maxProtos: any?, threadContext: number? }. Phase: observe; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only. Requires: active-client. Capabilities: debug closure primitives. Produces: structured-observation. Safety: read-only. On failure: inspect tool-schema for exact fields, defaults, constraints, and an invocation example.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "get-function-protos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYessearch text used to filter and rank bounded results.
maxProtosNoOptional hard result/work budget used to keep output and runtime bounded.
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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description mostly repeats these ('idempotency=read-only', 'Safety: read-only') while adding a little genuine context: 'Requires: active-client' and 'cost=medium'. It adds marginal value beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is padded with formulaic metadata tags (Phase, cost, idempotency, Capabilities, Produces, Safety) that largely duplicate the annotations and schema. The final sentence defers to tool-schema, so it consumes space without informing the call.

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 read-only, fully-documented 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the action, prerequisites, and safety profile. It nonetheless omits what 'nested proto debug info' returns and how it differs from the many proto/closure siblings, leaving an agent with a complete-but-unrouted definition.

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 query, maxProtos (default 30, budget), and threadContext. The description merely restates the signature ('{ query: string, maxProtos: any?, threadContext: number? }') without adding format, semantics, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find a function by query and dump nested proto debug info.' An agent can tell it retrieves proto debug data. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get-closure-protos, get-connection-protos, lookup-function, or scan-proto-functions, so selection between them is left to guesswork.

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 only usage constraint is the prerequisite 'Requires: active-client.' There is no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling proto/closure lookups, no when-not condition, and no alternative named. Phase/cost tags imply observation use but do not route the agent among alternatives.

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