TryHackMe MCP Server

thm_get_task

Retrieve full educational content, commands, theory, and questions for a specific TryHackMe room task using room code and task number.

Instructions

Get the full educational content, commands, theory, and questions for a specific task in a room.

Args: room_code: The room identifier (e.g. 'linuxfundamentalspart1'). task_no: The task number (1-indexed).

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>",
      "task_no": "<task_no>"
    },
    "name": "thm_get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_no`	Yes
`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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates what content is returned (commands, theory, questions), but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior on invalid room/task values.

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 compact Args block; every line contributes. The blank-line Args formatting is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both inputs are described. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any note about authentication or failure conditions for a read tool with no annotations.

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: it documents both parameters, gives a concrete room_code example, and adds the critical '1-indexed' note for task_no that the schema lacks.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full educational content, commands, theory, and questions for a specific task in a room'), plus scope detail that separates it from thm_get_room_full and thm_get_room_overview by targeting a single task rather than an entire room.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'a specific task in a room', leaving the agent to infer that room-wide retrieval belongs to the sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server