Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Roblox MCP

Roblox MCP

by sdhzcxnb0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_scripts

Lists all scripts in a Roblox place with their path, class, and line count, optionally under a specified root and limited by max results.

Instructions

List all scripts in the place (path, class, line count).

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": "list_scripts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootNogame
max_resultsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether the listing is recursive, whether scripts nested in models are included, or how truncation at max_results manifests in the response.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a flaw of structure in itself.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A read tool with no annotations, no output schema, two undocumented parameters, and twelve siblings needs more: defaults, recursion scope, result caps, and any permission requirements are all missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both parameters ('root' defaulting to 'game' and 'max_results' defaulting to 200) depend on the description for meaning, and the description never mentions either. The '(path, class, line count)' note describes return shape, not parameter behavior.

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 ('List all scripts in the place') and even names the returned fields (path, class, line count), which distinguishes it from read_script or search_instances. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, keeping it 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that read_script fetches a script's contents while this one enumerates them, and nothing says whether it walks the whole tree or only the given root.

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