TryHackMe MCP Server

thm_search_rooms

Search TryHackMe rooms by keyword to find relevant labs on Linux, Bash, networking, or privesc, returning up to a set limit for quick reference.

Instructions

Search TryHackMe rooms by keyword (e.g., 'linux', 'bash', 'networking', 'privesc').

Args: query: Search term or topic. limit: Maximum number of rooms to return (default: 10).

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "thm_search_rooms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 doesn't state whether this requires authentication (likely needed given thm_check_auth sibling), whether results are paginated, or how results are ordered. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

Very concise, front-loaded with purpose and examples, then brief parameter notes. The 'Args:' block is standard and doesn't waste words, though the single-sentence intro could be slightly tighter.

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?

With an output schema present (not shown), return format need not be explained. However, for a search tool with no annotations, the description should mention authentication requirements and possibly result behavior. It covers parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context.

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 does add meaning by explaining that query is a 'search term or topic' and limit is 'maximum number of rooms to return (default: 10)'. However, this merely restates the parameter names without adding format, constraints, or examples beyond the one keyword example.

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 (Search) and resource (TryHackMe rooms), and gives concrete keyword examples that make the scope unmistakable. It's clearly distinguished from siblings like thm_get_room_overview or thm_get_room_full which fetch by room rather than search.

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 usage (search by keyword/topic) but doesn't say when to use this versus alternatives like thm_get_curated_topics or thm_get_room_full. No explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites are given.

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

Deploy Server