Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Roblox Executor MCP Server

Roblox Executor MCP Server

by okenjioxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get the current, Actor, or script LuaStateProxy

get-lua-state
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve current Lua state metadata or that of a target Actor/BaseScript, including Id, IsActorState, Event, Actors, and a reusable registry reference.

Instructions

Call getluastate() for the current state, or getluastate(target) for an Actor/BaseScript expression. Returns serializable Id/IsActorState/Event/Actors metadata plus a reusable registry Reference. Signature: { targetExpression: any?, threadContext: number? }. Phase: observe; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only. Requires: active-client. Capabilities: getluastate. Produces: structured-observation. Safety: read-only. On failure: inspect tool-schema for exact fields, defaults, constraints, and an invocation example.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get-lua-state"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
threadContextNoOptional Roblox thread identity for this call; omit it to use the server default.
targetExpressionNoOptional validated input for target expression.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0-spies.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds genuinely new context: phase=observe, cost=medium, produces=structured-observation, and the active-client prerequisite. The redundancy ('idempotency=read-only' and 'Safety: read-only' restate annotations) slightly dilutes it, and it defers failure behavior to tool-schema rather than explaining it.

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 core behavior is front-loaded and clear, but the middle is a run of template-style key=value fragments (phase/cost/idempotency/capabilities/produces/safety) that partly duplicate the annotations, and the trailing 'inspect tool-schema' sentence is generic boilerplate. It is structured but not tight.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so ('serializable Id/IsActorState/Event/Actors metadata plus a reusable registry Reference'). For a 2-optional-param read tool this is close to complete; only the failure/invocation specifics are outsourced to tool-schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the schema's own description for targetExpression is vague ('Optional validated input for target expression') while the description clarifies it is an Actor/BaseScript expression. That is real added meaning beyond the schema, though the signature line itself only repeats parameter names.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Call getluastate() for the current state, or getluastate(target)...'), and the return shape ('Id/IsActorState/Event/Actors metadata plus a reusable registry Reference') makes the output concrete. It is distinguishable from list-lua-states and new-lua-state-proxy by verb, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives usage context ('Phase: observe', 'Requires: active-client') and explains the two invocation forms (no-arg vs target expression), which implies when it applies. However, it never states when to prefer this over list-lua-states, get-lua-state-actors, or new-lua-state-proxy, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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