Lists which media services are configured (Sonarr, Radarr, Prowlarr, Bazarr, Overseerr, Jellyfin, qBittorrent) and shows addresses only, never API keys.
List which services are set up (Sonarr, Radarr, Prowlarr, Bazarr, Overseerr, Jellyfin, qBittorrent). Shows addresses only, never keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the output shows addresses only and never keys, which is meaningful privacy behavior, but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, permission requirements, or other operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, the service examples add useful specificity, and the privacy note earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output privacy. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, though it could be slightly more complete by clarifying read-only behavior or usage context relative to siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add anything further here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: list which services are set up. It enumerates the exact services covered and makes clear this is a configuration-inventory tool, distinguishing it from siblings such as arr_status, arr_queue, arr_search, and arr_add.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as arr_status or arr_call. The purpose implies the tool can be used to discover configured services, but the description does not route the agent between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.