TryHackMe MCP Server

thm_get_room_overview

Retrieve a TryHackMe room's difficulty, estimated time, and task outline to plan your learning path before starting.

Instructions

Get an overview of a TryHackMe room, including difficulty, estimated time, and tasks outline.

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_overview"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the returned summary (difficulty, time, tasks outline) and the verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating call, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the overview is cached/live.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a short args block; no filler. The 'Args:' section is slightly redundant against the schema but costs little.

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 need not be re-explained, and the single required parameter is documented by example. Still missing is any routing versus the overlapping sibling thm_get_room_full, which is the main decision an agent faces here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives a concrete example identifier ('linuxfundamentalspart1'), which clarifies the expected room_code format beyond the bare string type, but adds no information about validity, case sensitivity, or lookup failure 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 ('Get an overview of a TryHackMe room') and enumerates what the overview contains (difficulty, estimated time, tasks outline). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling thm_get_room_full, leaving the overview-vs-full boundary implicit.

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 guidance is given. The obvious alternative, thm_get_room_full, is never mentioned, nor is any condition that would select the overview over the full room or thm_search_rooms.

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

Deploy Server