Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
radarr-mcp

radarr-mcp

by arr-mcps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

radarr_get_system_routes_duplicate

Read-only

Identify duplicate API routes registered in Radarr's system to detect configuration conflicts and potential routing issues.

Instructions

List duplicate registered API routes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "radarr_get_system_routes_duplicate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The `readOnlyHint: true` annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description ('List') aligns with that. No additional behavioral context is given, such as what counts as 'duplicate' or any system impact, but for a simple zero-param read the annotation carries the burden.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, this description is nearly complete. However, it doesn't clarify what 'duplicate routes' means technically (e.g., identical paths, same method), leaving slight ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are not an issue. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to document.

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 and resource: 'List duplicate registered API routes.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling `radarr_get_system_routes`, which presumably lists all routes, by specifying 'duplicate'.

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 description implies a diagnostic use case (checking for duplicate route registrations) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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