Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
radarr-mcp

radarr-mcp

by arr-mcps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

radarr_delete_remotepathmapping

Destructive

Delete a remote path mapping by ID. Permanently removes the mapping from Radarr, preventing it from being used for movie imports.

Instructions

Delete remote path mappings. DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "radarr_delete_remotepathmapping"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning aligns with structured metadata. However, it adds no new behavioral context beyond restating the destructive nature, leaving the agent to infer specifics like irreversibility or cascading effects.

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 extremely concise with only two short sentences, zero filler, and a clear warning. It is front-loaded with the action.

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 delete-by-id tool, the description covers the action and destruction. However, the lack of parameter semantics and any note about scope or side effects makes it only minimally complete. The output schema and annotations provide some structure, but the description doesn't fully stand alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain the 'id' parameter but does not. It leaves the agent to infer that 'id' refers to the remote path mapping ID from the tool name alone, which is a minimal and generic cue.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('remote path mappings'), using a specific verb+resource structure. It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling CRUD operations like create/list/update/get by indicating deletion.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools, leaving the usage to be inferred from the tool name alone.

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