Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
radarr-mcp

radarr-mcp

by arr-mcps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

radarr_test_metadata

Validate Radarr metadata configuration by running a test. Optionally force the test to get validation results. This modifies your Radarr instance.

Instructions

Test test (optionally force_test). Returns validation results. WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance.

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_test_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
force_testNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description explicitly warns 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance,' which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and adds a direct modification warning beyond the annotation. However, it does not detail what modifications occur or any side effects, and the annotation already signals the write nature.

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?

The description is brief, with three short sentences, and front-loads the action and WRITE warning. However, the first sentence 'Test test' is confusing and could be worded more clearly, slightly reducing clarity despite the concise structure.

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?

The description is insufficient for the tool's complexity. It does not explain what is being tested, what the body parameter should contain, or how force_test affects behavior. Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks critical context for correct invocation.

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?

The description mentions 'optionally force_test' but does not explain its meaning or purpose. The body parameter is not mentioned at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Test test' which is vague and does not clearly identify the resource being tested, though the tool name suggests metadata. It mentions 'Returns validation results' but the phrasing is awkward and somewhat tautological, offering little distinction from sibling test tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other test tools such as radarr_test_downloadclient or radarr_test_indexer. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without clear context.

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