SprutHub MCP Server

by pikerr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

sprut_update_room

Update an existing SprutHub room's name using its room ID and an optional new name.

Instructions

Update or rename an existing room.

Args: room_id: ID of the room to update. name: Optional new name for the room.

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_update_room"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`room_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

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 nothing about permissions required, reversibility, whether omitting 'name' is a no-op or a valid partial update, or what happens to the room's devices. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real 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?

Front-loaded with the core action in one line, followed by a compact args list. No filler, though the args block largely restates the schema property names.

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 described, and both params are at least named. But with no annotations and a mutation surface, the omission of permissions and partial-update semantics leaves the agent under-informed.

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, and it does document both parameters (room_id as the target, name as an optional new name). However it adds no format or type detail (e.g., integer ID) and does not clarify the null/default behavior visible 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 (update/rename) and resource (existing room), so an agent can distinguish this from sprut_create_room, sprut_delete_room, and sprut_list_rooms by verb alone. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the purpose 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_create_room or sprut_delete_room, nor any prerequisites (e.g., does the room need to exist, must it be empty). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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

Deploy Server