Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SprutHub MCP Server

SprutHub MCP Server

by pikerr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sprut_delete_room

Delete a room from a SprutHub smart home by room ID. Use to remove existing rooms and keep hub room lists current.

Instructions

Delete a room from the smart home.

Args: room_id: ID of the room to delete.

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_id": "<room_id>"
    },
    "name": "sprut_delete_room"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
room_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 says 'Delete' but never discloses whether the operation is irreversible, what happens to devices still assigned to the room, or what permissions are required — significant gaps for a destructive mutation.

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 with the action and resource, followed by a brief Args section. No filler, though the 'Args:' boilerplate is slightly redundant for a single obvious parameter.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive tool with zero annotations, the definition omits cascading effects, reversibility, and permission requirements. Output schema existence excuses explaining return values, but the behavioral gaps leave it materially incomplete.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning; it correctly identifies room_id as the ID of the room to delete. However, it adds nothing about format, how to obtain the ID (e.g., via sprut_list_rooms), or type expectations beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a room from the smart home'), making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like sprut_create_room and sprut_update_room. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus sprut_update_room, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or confirmation semantics. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools