Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Roblox Executor MCP Server

Roblox Executor MCP Server

by okenjioxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Restore any currently hooked function

restore-function
Destructive

Restores a hooked Luau function in a live Roblox client, including hooks not installed via the MCP registry, by resolving the target function and applying the restore with explicit confirmation.

Instructions

WRITES LIVE GAME STATE. Resolve a target and call restorefunction/restorefunc directly. Unlike restore-hook, this also restores hooks not installed through the MCP registry. Requires confirm=true. Signature: { functionPath: string, threadContext: number?, confirm: boolean? }. Phase: act; cost=medium; idempotency=contextual-write. Requires: active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval. Produces: structured-result. Verify with: is-function-hooked. Safety: MUTATING; writes live game/client state. 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": {
      "functionPath": "<functionPath>"
    },
    "name": "restore-function"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoExplicit safety acknowledgement; must be true before this state-changing operation runs.
functionPathYesLuau expression resolving to the target function.
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: it writes LIVE GAME STATE, requires explicit-mutation-approval and an active/resolved client, has contextual-write idempotency, and produces a structured result. This is well past what the structured fields convey.

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?

Front-loads the critical warning ('WRITES LIVE GAME STATE') and the sibling differentiator. The metadata tail (phase/cost/idempotency/preconditions) is dense but each item is actionable; only the generic 'On failure: inspect tool-schema' sentence is near-filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, the required confirmation, the verification sibling, and the failure fallback. It stops short of describing the structured result's shape, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 functionPath, threadContext, and confirm including defaults and the Luau-expression semantics. The description's signature line largely restates the schema, adding only the emphasis that confirm is mandatory; baseline 3 applies.

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 (restore) and resource (a currently hooked function) and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling restore-hook: 'Unlike restore-hook, this also restores hooks not installed through the MCP registry.' An agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (restore-hook) and the exact condition that selects this tool (hooks not installed through the MCP registry), plus a verification path ('Verify with: is-function-hooked') and a hard precondition (confirm=true). Routing is unambiguous.

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