A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceRead-only MCP server that monitors a Bitcoin Core full node via JSON-RPC, providing tools to check node status, network info, mempool, and peer information.
MIT
qbittorrent-readonly-mcp
by XiaotaoGuo
qBittorrent Read-only MCP
これは独立にメンテナンスされている qBittorrent 読み取り専用 MCP プロジェクトで、qBittorrent Web API のクエリをローカルの stdio MCP ツールとしてラップし、AI クライアントが直接リアルタイム診断できるようにするものです。
安全モデル
stdioのみに対応し、ネットワークポートを一切リッスンしません。qBittorrent のアドレスと API Key は環境変数または外部のシークレットファイルからのみ読み取られ、MCP ツールの引数で接続先を上書きすることはできません。
クライアントは固定の GET endpoint のみ許可されます。汎用の request・URL・endpoint ツールはありません。
追加、一時停止、再開、チェック、削除、移動、tracker 変更、設定変更などの書き込みツールは登録されません。
完全な tracker URL、passkey、magnet、Cookie、認証情報はツールの結果に含まれません。
qBittorrent API Key 自体は完全な Web API 権限を持っています。読み取り専用性は、本サービスの2層の allowlist とテストによって保証されます。
本 MCP はファイルシステムの再帰スキャンを実行せず、役割は qBittorrent のリアルタイムクエリに限定されます。
Related MCP server: pve-mcp-server
ツール
get_health_summary: バージョン、速度、タスク状態、異常のサマリー。list_torrents: 状態、カテゴリ、最小サイズ、非アクティブ日数でタスクをフィルタリング。get_torrent_details: 最低8桁の Info Hash プレフィックスで、安全なフィールド、ファイル、tracker ホスト名を取得。list_problem_torrents:missingFiles、error、および完了していない停滞タスクを一覧表示。analyze_largest_torrents: 論理サイズで Top N タスクを分析。
環境要件
Python 3.10+
uvプロジェクト外部のシークレットファイルに以下が含まれている:
QBIT_URLQBIT_API_KEY
デフォルトではプロセス環境から読み取ります。シークレットファイルのパスのみを渡すこともできます:
export QBIT_MCP_ENV_FILE="/path/to/secrets/nas-audit.env"Key をこのディレクトリや Codex 設定にコピーしないでください。
インストールとテスト
cd /path/to/qbittorrent-readonly-mcp
uv sync
uv run pytest実際の読み取り専用 smoke test（ツール名とマスキング確認結果のみを出力）:
uv run python scripts/live_smoke.py \
--env-file /path/to/secrets/nas-audit.envローカル起動:
QBIT_MCP_ENV_FILE="/path/to/secrets/nas-audit.env" \
uv run qbittorrent-readonly-mcpサービス起動後は stdin/stdout で MCP プロトコルを転送するため、通常の対話プロンプトは表示されません。
Codex 設定
Codex は信頼できるプロジェクトの .codex/config.toml でローカル STDIO MCP を設定できます。以下は設定例です。ここではシークレットファイルのパスのみを渡し、API Key を設定に書き込むことはしません。実際のパスは、この MCP を使用するホストプロジェクト側で管理する必要があります:
[mcp_servers.qbittorrent_readonly]
command = "/path/to/qbittorrent-readonly-mcp/.venv/bin/qbittorrent-readonly-mcp"
args = []
cwd = "/path/to/qbittorrent-readonly-mcp"
enabled = true
required = false
startup_timeout_sec = 20
tool_timeout_sec = 60
default_tools_approval_mode = "auto"
enabled_tools = [
"get_health_summary",
"list_torrents",
"get_torrent_details",
"list_problem_torrents",
"analyze_largest_torrents",
]
[mcp_servers.qbittorrent_readonly.env]
QBIT_MCP_ENV_FILE = "/path/to/secrets/nas-audit.env"このリポジトリは Codex 設定も資格情報も保存しません。呼び出し側はこのプロジェクトの起動コマンドを参照し、プロジェクト外部のシークレットファイルパスを渡すだけで十分です。
Codex MCP の設定方法は OpenAI公式ドキュメント を参照し、Python 実装は Model Context Protocol 公式 Python SDK を使用しています。
開発
コアのレイヤリング:
MCP tools
-> ReadOnlyQbitService（筛选、聚合、固定输出）
-> QbitReadOnlyClient（固定 GET allowlist）
-> qBittorrent Web API新しい endpoint は必ず最初に READ_ONLY_ENDPOINTS に追加し、「非ホワイトリスト拒否」と「機密フィールドの漏洩なし」のテストを追加する必要があります。
Available Tools
5 toolsanalyze_largest_torrentsBRead-onlyIdempotent
Return the largest torrents, optionally limited to a minimum inactivity age.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| inactive_days | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful selection semantics (size-based ordering and the inactivity-age filter) but does not disclose details such as how results are capped or ordered beyond the word 'largest'.
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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes either the core behavior or the optional filter.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations that cover safety/idempotency, the description covers the essential behavior. It is only missing explicit sibling differentiation and a more concrete statement of the limit parameter's effect.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does clarify inactive_days as a 'minimum inactivity age'. However, the limit parameter is not explained; its meaning is only implied by the word 'largest' and the schema's default of 20.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the largest torrents', with an optional inactivity-age filter. It uniquely identifies the tool's role among siblings through the 'largest' qualifier, though it does not explicitly contrast it with list_torrents.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. An agent is left to infer that this should be chosen over list_torrents or list_problem_torrents based solely on the phrase 'largest torrents'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_health_summaryARead-onlyIdempotent
Return versions, transfer speeds, task state counts, and read-only problem summary.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety properties. It adds a little context with the list of returned aggregates, but no extra behavioral disclosures such as auth or failure modes.
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?
One compact sentence with a strong verb and a clear list of result categories. No redundant qualifiers or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read-only health summary with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it. It does not need to elaborate on return layout since the schema exists.
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?
There are zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is required; the schema coverage is effectively complete. The description's mention of returned fields avoids any need to compensate for parameter gaps.
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?
The description opens with 'Return' and names versions, transfer speeds, task state counts, and a problem summary, making the resource and scope clear. The system-level content clearly separates it from torrent-scoped siblings like list_torrents and analyze_largest_torrents.
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?
No when-to-use or alternative-selection guidance is given. The description only states what is returned; it does not say when to prefer get_health_summary over get_torrent_details or list_problem_torrents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_torrent_detailsARead-onlyIdempotent
Get safe details for one torrent using an 8+ character hexadecimal Info Hash prefix.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond the hash-prefix input requirement; 'safe' is redundant with the annotations.
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?
One sentence with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the input format requirement is stated compactly.
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?
The tool is simple: one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema that can cover return values. The main missing piece is guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings, but that is not critical for a single-parameter lookup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the opaque 'identifier' parameter. It does so clearly by specifying that it is an 8+ character hexadecimal Info Hash prefix, giving the agent a precise format to validate against.
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?
Description clearly states a specific verb ('get'), a specific resource ('details for one torrent'), and the required input form ('8+ character hexadecimal Info Hash prefix'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list/analysis tools by emphasizing single-torrent scope.
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 phrase 'for one torrent' implies the tool is appropriate when a single torrent's details are needed, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_problem_torrentsARead-onlyIdempotent
List missing, errored, unknown, or incomplete stalled/stopped torrents.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not repeat that. It adds filtering scope, but provides no extra behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or result size details beyond the schema's default limit.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action and the precise inclusion criteria efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
For a low-complexity, read-only tool with no required parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main omission is guidance on the limit parameter, but the schema default and output schema mitigate the impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description says nothing about the 'limit' parameter. The parameter name and default value suggest the basic meaning, but the description does not clarify how limiting behaves, such as whether results are truncated or how a custom limit affects the response.
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?
The description uses a specific verb, 'List', and identifies a distinct resource: problem torrents, explicitly naming the statuses included (missing, errored, unknown, or incomplete stalled/stopped). This clearly differentiates it from the generic sibling list_torrents.
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 wording implies this tool is for finding torrents in problematic states, especially stalled or stopped ones, rather than for general listing. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or state conditions for when this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_torrentsCRead-onlyIdempotent
List torrents using local filters; no filter value is sent as an arbitrary API endpoint.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| min_size_gib | No | ||
| inactive_days | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that filters are applied locally, but the phrase 'no filter value is sent as an arbitrary API endpoint' is vague and potentially confusing. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and the main verb/resource is front-loaded, which is good. However, the second clause is cryptic and does not earn its place, and the overall terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.
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?
With five optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and sibling tools that perform related listing/filtering tasks, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned output contains, how filters interact, or when this tool is preferable to list_problem_torrents or analyze_largest_torrents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for the five undocumented parameters, but it only says 'using local filters' without explaining limit, state, category, min_size_gib, or inactive_days. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('torrents') clearly, and the phrase 'using local filters' signals that filtering is done client-side. However, the second clause about arbitrary API endpoints is confusing and does little to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_torrent_details or list_problem_torrents.
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?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_torrent_details, list_problem_torrents, or analyze_largest_torrents. The 'local filters' hint implies a listing use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
5 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
analyze_largest_torrents - First observed
get_health_summary - First observed
get_torrent_details - First observed
list_problem_torrents - First observed
list_torrents
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Scored across 5 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct monitoring concern: aggregate health, general torrent listing, per-torrent details, problem triage, and size/inactivity analysis. The two list-like tools are clearly differentiated by filtering to problem torrents versus all torrents.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, analyze_*). There are no mixed conventions or vague one-word identifiers.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a read-only qBittorrent monitoring server. Each tool provides a distinct capability without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the main read-only workflow: health summary, listing, details, problem identification, and size analysis. Minor gaps exist around lower-level details like trackers or peer lists, but agents can accomplish core monitoring without dead ends.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Read-only MCP access to a documented IT fleet: state, changes, posture. 15 tools.
Read-only MCP tools for AI agent discovery, structured resources, and NIULAI information.
Read-only DERO blockchain MCP: 33 tools (12 composites) incl. TELA discovery + bundled docs.
Read-only developer, date, finance, and text utilities. Authless remote MCP server by Clean.tools.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceRead-only Proxmox VE MCP server providing 25 tools for VM, LXC, node, storage, and cluster inspection via stdio transport.25-
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that exposes qui's JSON REST API as tools for monitoring and managing qBittorrent instances, torrents, automations, cross-seeding, RSS, backups, and related services.12MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA read-only MCP server that exposes AI Disk Doctor Core's scan, model inventory, and history tools via local stdio, with no mutation or shell capabilities.4Apache 2.0