Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Roblox Executor MCP Server

Roblox Executor MCP Server

by okenjioxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Check whether the current executor thread is parallel

is-parallel-context
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a Roblox thread context is parallel and return a boolean without changing scheduler state. Use this read-only observation to branch execution based on concurrency status.

Instructions

Call isparallel/is_parallel and return a boolean without changing scheduler state. Signature: { threadContext: number? }. Phase: observe; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only. Requires: active-client. 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": "is-parallel-context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value with "without changing scheduler state," "Requires: active-client," and "cost=medium," but these are terse and formulaic rather than rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose first, which is good. But it is fragmented into boilerplate key-value fragments (Phase/cost/idempotency/Safety) and closes with a generic "inspect tool-schema" instruction that adds little; a tighter sentence would carry the same information.

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?

For a simple read-only boolean check with one optional parameter and full annotations, the description covers return type, non-mutation, prerequisites, and failure handling. No output schema is needed since it returns a boolean. It is nearly complete, with only sibling routing left out.

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 single threadContext parameter is fully documented by the schema (optional, server default on omission). The description merely restates the signature ({ threadContext: number? }) without adding meaning, so the 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: calls isparallel/is_parallel and returns a boolean without changing scheduler state. An agent can tell what it does and that it is non-mutating. However, it does not differentiate itself from any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Phase: observe" and "Requires: active-client" give implied context for when the tool is applicable. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative among the many sibling introspection tools (e.g. is-c-closure, is-readonly), leaving selection largely to inference.

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