Explore Roomvana room types and styles, then open a link to redesign a room from a photo.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: one creates a design link, one lists styles, one lists room types. There is no overlap or ambiguity in what each tool does.
All names use snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern (design_a_room, list_design_styles, list_room_types). The use of singular with article versus plural is semantically appropriate and does not break the pattern.
Three tools is minimal but well-scoped for this server's purpose of generating design links and exposing valid options. Each tool earns its place, though it sits at the lower bound of typical tool counts.
The surface covers the full workflow: discovering valid styles and room types, and creating a design link with those options. No obvious operations are missing for the stated one-shot generation purpose.
Turn a room + style choice into a Roomvana studio link with those options pre-selected. The user opens the link, uploads a photo of the room, and gets an AI redesign. Validates the room and style against Roomvana's catalogue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | Room or space id, e.g. 'bedroom', 'kitchen', 'backyard'. | |
| notes | No | Optional free-text notes about the desired look (echoed back; not encoded in the link). | |
| style | No | Optional design style id, e.g. 'japandi', 'modern'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that this only produces a link and that room/style are validated against Roomvana's catalogue, but says nothing about what happens on invalid input, link lifetime, or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the transformation, then the downstream user flow, then the validation caveat. No filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 burden of explaining the return value (a studio link) and it does so clearly in the first sentence. Missing only edge-case behavior on invalid room/style, which is minor for a 3-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by stating the chosen options are pre-selected in the generated link and clarifying that notes are merely echoed (not encoded), which helps an agent reason about what actually affects the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb+resource: turning a room and style into a Roomvana studio link. The transformation is concrete and clearly different from the sibling listers, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_design_styles/list_room_types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case by narrating the end-to-end flow (user opens the link, uploads a photo, gets a redesign), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites for calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the design styles Roomvana can render (e.g. modern, japandi, industrial), each with a short description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information with no output schema present: the result is a collection of style names, each carrying a short description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with parenthetical examples that add value rather than padding. Nothing extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-param, read-only enumeration with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will get back (styles with short descriptions). It lacks only an explicit tie-in to the workflow (e.g. feed a style into design_a_room).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly conveys that the call is argument-free and returns the full set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (design styles) with concrete examples of the values returned. It clearly reads as a discovery/enumeration tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings design_a_room or list_room_types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup to run before calling design_a_room, but the description never states when to use it, prerequisites, or that it takes no arguments. No exclusions or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the room and outdoor space types Roomvana can redesign (interior rooms, house exterior, and garden/outdoor spaces).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description contributes only the kind of list returned; with no output schema present it could say more about result shape (flat list of type names vs grouped), but the gap is small for a no-arg read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical enumeration is the highest-value content in it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a trivial zero-parameter, closed-world read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition is essentially sufficient. The only missing element is anything about the returned list's structure, which is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so the schema provides nothing to interpret and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumeration of returned categories (interior rooms, exterior, garden/outdoor) adds mild value as a preview of the value space.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('List') and a precisely bounded resource ('room and outdoor space types Roomvana can redesign'), even enumerating the categories. An agent can distinguish it from list_design_styles and design_a_room without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent would infer this is the discovery call before design_a_room, but the description never says when to call it, that it takes no inputs, or that it is the enumeration source for valid room types. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
design_a_room2 fields changedInput schema / properties / room / descriptionPrevious value: -"Room or space id, e.g. 'bedroom', 'kitchen', 'backyard'. See list_room_types."New value: +"Room or space id, e.g. 'bedroom', 'kitchen', 'backyard'."Input schema / properties / style / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional design style id, e.g. 'japandi', 'modern'. See list_design_styles."New value: +"Optional design style id, e.g. 'japandi', 'modern'."design_a_roomlist_design_styleslist_room_typesAI virtual staging and architectural rendering: stage rooms, render interiors, exteriors, sketches.
AI virtual staging for real estate — stage rooms, beautify floor plans, classify images.
Virtual staging and room redesign: quote, render and download with budget-limited account keys.
AI interior, exterior and landscape design, photoreal rendering, image editing, video and 3D.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
