Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Roku MCP

Roku MCP

by vynxc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

roku_check

Check a Roku project for issues and get diagnostic feedback. Nonzero exit codes signal failures, enabling quick validation before packaging or running tests.

Instructions

Check a Roku project; diagnostics and nonzero exit codes indicate failures.

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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "roku_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYesProject path relative to the current session workspace, or an absolute path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool emits diagnostics and signals failures via nonzero exit codes, which is useful. However, it does not state whether checking has side effects, requires network access, or how output is delivered, leaving gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key behavioral signal about exit codes.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and failure signaling. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves ambiguity around side effects and selection among related tools, so it is only minimally complete.

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?

The schema already documents the single 'project' parameter fully, including relative/absolute path behavior, with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action ('Check') and the resource ('a Roku project'), and adds that it produces diagnostics with nonzero exit codes for failures. This clearly conveys the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like roku_test or roku_doctor.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as roku_test or roku_doctor. It only states what the tool does, leaving the selection context to inference. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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