Skip to main content
Glama
okenjioxx

Roblox Executor MCP Server

by okenjioxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Bind this session to a Roblox client (account-sticky)

select-client
Read-onlyIdempotent

Bind a connected Roblox client to the current session so tool calls target that game. Choose by username to keep the binding across reconnects without reselecting.

Instructions

Bind a connected Roblox client to THIS session so your tool calls target that game. Select by clientId OR by username — selecting by username is recommended because it is account-sticky: a client gets a new clientId every reconnect, but a username binding follows the account across rejoins without re-selecting. Each session keeps its own selection, so two sessions can drive two games at once. If several agents SHARE one session, don't fight over this binding — instead pass client (clientId or username) directly to script/execute/run-luau to target a game for a single call without changing anyone's selection. Provide exactly one of clientId or username; the value must match a currently-connected client. Signature: { clientId: string?, username: string? }. Phase: observe; cost=low; idempotency=read-only. Requires: none. Produces: structured-result. Safety: read-only. On failure: inspect tool-schema for exact fields, defaults, constraints, and an invocation example.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clientIdNoOptional connected Roblox client id returned by list-clients.
usernameNoOptional Roblox username used to resolve a connected client.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0-spies.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: per-session scoping, account-stickiness of username bindings, and the requirement that the value match a currently-connected client. It also restates the safety/idempotency metadata, which is redundant, keeping it short of a 5.

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 core guidance is front-loaded and every substantive sentence earns its place, but the trailing 'Phase/cost/Requires/Produces/Safety/On failure' block is boilerplate that largely duplicates the annotations and adds length without new information.

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?

For a 2-param, no-output-schema, read-only binding tool, the description covers selection semantics, scoping, alternatives, failure handling, and validation rules. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds constraints the schema does not encode: exactly one of clientId/username must be provided, and the username form is preferred for stickiness. That is real added meaning beyond the per-field descriptions.

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 (bind) and resource (connected Roblox client to THIS session) and explains the resulting effect on subsequent tool calls. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list-clients, get-active-client, and clear-selection.

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?

Explicitly says to select by clientId OR username, recommends username with a concrete reason (account-sticky across reconnects), and tells the agent what to do instead when several agents share a session (pass `client` to script/execute/run-luau). This is a full when/when-not/alternative treatment.

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