Skip to main content
Glama
TJLDC

Roomvana MCP Server

by TJLDC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Roomvana MCP server

An MCP server for Roomvana — AI interior design. It lets an AI assistant browse the room types and design styles Roomvana supports and hand the user a studio link with their choices pre-selected. Upload a photo of any room and get a realistic redesign in about 30 seconds at roomvana.ai.

Read-only and no sign-in required: this server never uploads photos or spends credits. The actual redesign happens on the website.

Tools

Tool

What it does

list_design_styles

Lists the design styles Roomvana can render (modern, japandi, industrial, coastal, …), each with a short description.

list_room_types

Lists the rooms and outdoor spaces Roomvana can redesign — interior rooms, house exterior, and garden/patio/backyard.

design_a_room

Returns a roomvana.ai studio link with the chosen room and style pre-selected; validates both against Roomvana's live catalog.

Related MCP server: ai-room-design-mcp

Install

Requires Node.js 18+.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "roomvana": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "roomvana-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Add that to your MCP client config (Claude Desktop: claude_desktop_config.json; other clients: their MCP config file), then restart the client.

From source

npm install
npm run build
npm start

Example

"I want to redo my bedroom in a japandi style."

The assistant calls design_a_room with room=bedroom, style=japandi and returns:

https://roomvana.ai/design?room=bedroom&style=japandi

Open it, upload a photo of the room, and generate a redesign. Your walls, windows and layout stay put — only the look changes.

How it works

The list of supported rooms and styles is fetched live from Roomvana's public catalog endpoint (https://api.roomvana.co/options), so the server never offers something Roomvana can't render. If that endpoint is unreachable, it falls back to a bundled snapshot.

Links

License

MIT

Available Tools

3 tools
design_a_roomAInspect

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 in about 30 seconds. Validates the room and style against Roomvana's live catalog.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roomYesRoom or space id, e.g. 'bedroom', 'kitchen', 'backyard'. See list_room_types.
notesNoOptional free-text notes about the desired look (echoed back to help the user; not encoded in the link).
styleNoOptional design style id, e.g. 'japandi', 'modern'. See list_design_styles.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the room and style are validated against Roomvana's live catalog (implying invalid ids fail) and that the tool only produces a link rather than performing the redesign. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, link persistence, or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core outcome (studio link with options pre-selected) followed by what the user does with it. No filler, though the 30-second detail is marginally decorative.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what the caller receives (a studio link with options pre-selected). The end-to-end user flow is covered; only failure/validation-error behavior is left unspecified.

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 room, style, and the notes field (including that notes are echoed but not encoded in the link). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 and artifact: it turns a room + style into a pre-configured Roomvana studio link. It also clarifies what the tool does not do (the redesign happens after the user opens the link), so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling list_room_types and list_design_styles tools.

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?

The description implies the usage context by describing the downstream user flow (open link, upload photo, get redesign), but it never states when to call this vs. alternatives or any prerequisites. The only routing hint ('See list_room_types' / 'See list_design_styles') lives in the schema, not the description, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

list_design_stylesAInspect

List the interior-design styles Roomvana can render (e.g. modern, japandi, industrial), each with a short description. Use this to pick a style for design_a_room.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload ('each with a short description') and the read-only nature implied by 'List', which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating exhaustiveness, freshness, or access requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly scoped sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the follow-on usage note is a single clause, so every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema catalog tool, the description covers both what is returned (styles with short descriptions) and the workflow reason to call it. 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are needed to enumerate styles.

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 and resource ('List the interior-design styles Roomvana can render') and grounds it with concrete examples (modern, japandi, industrial). An agent can distinguish this catalog-listing tool from design_a_room (which renders) and list_room_types (which enumerates a different domain) without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to pick a `style` for design_a_room', linking the tool to its downstream consumer. It gives clear context but does not describe exclusions or contrast directly with the list_room_types sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

list_room_typesAInspect

List the room and outdoor space types Roomvana can redesign (interior rooms, house exterior, and garden/outdoor spaces). Use this to pick a room for design_a_room.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but for a zero-parameter static enumeration the risk surface is minimal. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned content (three categories of redesignable space), which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs; pagination, auth and ordering are irrelevant here.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by the reason to call it. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned categories and pointing to the consuming tool (design_a_room). Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no spurious parameter talk, and the empty schema leaves nothing to clarify.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('room and outdoor space types'), then enumerates the categories returned (interior rooms, house exterior, garden/outdoor). This distinguishes it from the sibling list_design_styles, which enumerates a different taxonomy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly states the downstream use: 'Use this to pick a `room` for design_a_room,' which tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right call. It stops short of a full when/when-not pair (e.g., no statement that it should not be used to find style ids), so it is clear context rather than complete routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observeddesign_a_room
    • First observedlist_design_styles
    • First observedlist_room_types
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: two lookup helpers for separate dimensions (styles vs. rooms) and one action tool that composes them. There is no realistic way to confuse them, and the descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other to reinforce the intended workflow.

Naming Consistency5/5

All three tools use a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_design_styles, list_room_types, and design_a_room. The two listing tools are perfectly parallel, and the action tool follows the same verb-first convention.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is reasonable for a narrowly scoped link-generation flow: two enumeration helpers plus one generator. It sits at the lean end of appropriate, but each tool clearly earns its place with no redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core flow of discovering valid styles/rooms and producing a pre-configured design link. Minor gaps exist (e.g. no way to check the status or result of a generated design, or fetch account history), but these fall outside the intended handoff where the user completes the workflow externally.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • APIAny MCP

    ailingqu
    -
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    Not graded
    maintenance
    Enables discovery of public AI models with pricing, documentation context, and OpenAI-compatible integration examples. Supports both read-only queries and paid async media generation tasks.
    -

  • VFS DMS ChatGPT Plugin

    mergi72
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables read-only file-management operations from AI assistants, including health checks, connection and folder listings, search, share-link resolution, metadata retrieval, and on-demand document reading.
    MIT