TryHackMe MCP Server

thm_get_room_full

Extract complete TryHackMe room content as structured Markdown, covering all tasks, theory, code, and exercises by room code.

Instructions

Extract complete room content into structured Markdown with all tasks, theory, code, and exercises.

Args: room_code: The room identifier (e.g. 'linuxfundamentalspart1').

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": {
      "room_code": "<room_code>"
    },
    "name": "thm_get_room_full"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`room_code`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format ('structured Markdown') which the output schema alone would not convey in words, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the extraction is read-only. Partial coverage of an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded sentence carries the purpose and output scope, followed by a compact Args block that adds the example. Slight redundancy from restating the single parameter, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values needn't be re-explained, and the description correctly conveys the Markdown shape. However, for an unannotated tool with a sibling auth-checker (thm_check_auth), the absence of any auth or access caveat leaves a real gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: room_code is explained as 'the room identifier' with a concrete example ('linuxfundamentalspart1'). That is materially more useful than the bare 'Room Code' title in the schema.

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 ('Extract') and resource ('complete room content') with an enumerated output scope (tasks, theory, code, exercises). The word 'complete' implicitly separates it from thm_get_room_overview and thm_get_task, but it never names those siblings, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus thm_get_room_overview or thm_get_task, nor any stated prerequisites such as authentication. 'Complete' hints at 'use when you need everything', but that is implied usage at best.

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

Deploy Server