mcp-arr-suite

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.6.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with clear verb-object naming. Minor confusion possible between sonarr_get_quality_profiles and sonarr_get_quality_profile, or between various search tools (search_episode vs search_releases vs search_missing), but descriptions clarify usage.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent [domain]_[verb]_[object] snake_case pattern. Prefixes (arr_, trash_, sonarr_) group related functionality, and verbs (get, add, delete, update, trigger) are used predictably across the suite.
Tool Count2/5
With 70 tools, this is a very large surface. While it covers many Sonarr operations, the sheer number overwhelms the typical agent and includes many niche administrative tools (logs, system tasks, backup) that could be omitted or combined.
Completeness3/5
The Sonarr library management surface is comprehensive (series, episodes, quality profiles, custom formats, tags, blocklist, imports). However, the suite claims to cover all *arr services but has no Radarr-specific tools, and missing indexer management and notification configuration are notable gaps.
Average 3.9/5 across 70 of 70 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 11, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Trigger a download search' but does not explain that this may initiate automatic downloads, add items to the queue, or what the command response looks like. This ambiguity is a significant gap for an action that could have side 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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Trigger.' Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain the expected outcome (e.g., initiates a search that may download releases), whether the operation is asynchronous, or what happens after triggering. This leaves the agent without enough context to predict the tool's behavior.
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?
The schema description for episodeIds ('Episode ID(s) (from sonarr_get_episodes)') provides clear meaning and source for the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra parameter context, aligning with the baseline score of 3.
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 a specific action: 'Trigger a download search for specific episode(s).' It clearly identifies the verb, resource, and target. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like sonarr_search or sonarr_search_missing, which also involve searching.
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 guidance is provided. The description does not mention that this tool is for triggering searches for known episode IDs, nor does it differentiate when to use sonarr_search_missing for missing episodes or sonarr_search_releases for release searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states it 'sets' monitored status, but does not explain whether changes are reversible, what happens to episodes already downloaded, or whether the operation is destructive in any way. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 key action and scope efficiently.
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 tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not clarify the seriesId mismatch, define expected return values, or provide examples. It is adequate for a simple tool but falls short given the claim of supporting multiple series and the lack of annotation support.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description claims 'one or more series' while the schema defines seriesId as a single number, not an array. This introduces ambiguity and undermines trust in parameter semantics. The schema itself provides adequate descriptions, but the description adds misleading information.
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 ('Bulk set monitored status'), the target ('entire seasons'), and the scope ('across one or more series'), distinguishing it from per-episode monitoring tools like sonarr_monitor_episodes. It is specific and immediately understandable.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with similar tools such as sonarr_monitor_episodes or sonarr_update_series. The usage context is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only lists updatable fields. It does not disclose side effects, whether fields are partially updated or replaced (e.g., tags replacement), any prerequisites, or return behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and follows with specific examples. No redundant words or filler.
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?
This is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It fails to mention prerequisites (like needing a valid seriesId from sonarr_get_series), what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response will contain. It is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond naming three of the fields, and it omits seasonFolder entirely. However, the schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb and resource: 'Update a series in Sonarr' and enumerates specific fields (monitored status, quality profile, tags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_bulk_update_series and sonarr_update_quality_profile.
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 alternatives such as sonarr_bulk_update_series or sonarr_season_pass. The description simply states what it does without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the action but offers no behavioral details. Since no annotations are provided, it should disclose that the deletion is permanent and irreversible, or any dependencies/restrictions, but it does not.
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 that states the action without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple deletion tool.
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?
The description is minimal but covers the basic operation. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks any mention of irreversibility, error behavior, or side effects, leaving the description only partially complete.
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?
The input schema already fully documents the single required parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the deletion is by ID.
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 the specific verb 'delete' with a clear resource ('custom format from Sonarr') and method ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like create/update/get custom formats.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It is only obvious from the name and description that it is for deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns upcoming air dates but does not describe the response format (e.g., list of episodes, fields included), whether it is read-only, or any limitations such as maximum days. The read-only nature is inferred but not explicit.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording; every part ('Get upcoming episode air dates') is meaningful, and 'from Sonarr' is mildly redundant but not detrimental.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks some context that would help the agent fully understand the result. It does not explicitly mention the 'days' parameter or the nature of the returned data (e.g., whether it includes show names and episode numbers). The description would benefit from mentioning the default timeframe and that it returns a list of episodes.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameters, with the 'days' parameter already described in the schema as 'Days to look ahead (default: 7)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('upcoming episode air dates'), which precisely distinguishes this calendar tool from the many other Sonarr tools in the sibling list. No other tool seems to serve the same purpose, so there is no ambiguity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonarr_get_episodes or sonarr_search. It does not state whether it covers all series or requires filtering, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the term 'upcoming'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetch recent' and does not mention pagination, default page size, sorting order, or what happens when no filters are applied. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool that might return large log sets.
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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It immediately states the action and resource, earning a high score for conciseness.
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?
The description is minimal but functional for a simple read operation with three optional parameters. However, without an output schema or any mention of return format, pagination defaults, or filtering behavior, it is not fully complete. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for page, level, and pageSize. The description adds 'recent' but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool fetches recent application log entries from Sonarr. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'application log entries' are specific, and this is distinct from all sibling tools that focus on other aspects like series, quality profiles, or commands.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning context, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the presence of 'logs' suggests usage for debugging, there is no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions the all-series behavior when seriesId is omitted, but that is already in the schema. It does not disclose side effects, async execution, or whether it contacts external indexers.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler words. Every phrase adds information, even though the second sentence overlaps with schema.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and optionality. However, it omits context about whether this is a long-running command, how to check status, or when to choose it over related trigger tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains the omit-to-refresh-all behavior. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Trigger a metadata refresh') and the target resource ('a specific series in Sonarr'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like rescan or rename by specifying 'metadata refresh'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonarr_trigger_rescan_series or sonarr_trigger_rename_series. It only describes the optionality of seriesId, not selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it creates a new format, which implies a write operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as duplicate name errors, whether it overwrites existing formats, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the key requirement. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately brief for a simple create tool.
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?
Given the moderate complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description is too thin. It does not explain expected return values, error conditions, or idempotency. The 'full specifications array' hint is useful but not sufficient to fully guide an agent invoking this tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a mild hint that the specifications array must be 'full', emphasizing completeness, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. No additional parameter details are provided for includeWhenRenaming.
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 'Create' and the resource 'custom format in Sonarr', distinguishing it from sibling tools like update, list, get, and delete. It also adds the scope of defining matching rules via a specifications array.
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 usage is implied by the verb 'Create' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus update, or any prerequisites like listing existing formats first. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it relies on the user to infer intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new tag' without explaining side effects, duplicate behavior, permissions, or response format. This is minimal and leaves significant unknowns for a mutating operation.
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 sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, making it highly concise and well-structured for a simple tool.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and object. It is slightly short on potential edge-case guidance (e.g., duplicate labels), but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter ('label' as 'Tag label/name'), so the description adds no extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat or elaborate.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new tag in Sonarr'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like sonarr_delete_tag and sonarr_get_tags. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., tag name uniqueness), and no examples. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and generic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which correctly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the response is a full list of all clients, whether sensitive fields (like API keys or passwords) are masked, or any behavior around empty configurations. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the absence of annotations raises the bar.
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, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose immediately. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, with zero unnecessary words or extra sentences.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the minimal viable information—what it retrieves and from where. However, it lacks any behavior context (e.g., return format, whether it includes disabled clients, or auth/network expectations) that would make it fully self-sufficient for an agent. Still, for a simple list-style tool, it is close to adequate.
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 the schema coverage is 100% (effectively, since the schema is empty). The description's mention of 'configurations' adds minimal meaning, but with no parameters to explain, the baseline for parameter semantics is naturally high. There is no additional parameter detail needed.
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 'Get download client configurations from Sonarr (TV)' clearly identifies the action (get/list) and resource (download client configurations), scoped to Sonarr with a TV flavor. It is distinct enough from siblings like 'sonarr_get_quality_profiles' or 'sonarr_get_series', though it doesn't explicitly mention 'all' or 'list', which would add precision.
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 read-only query for download client setups, which is a common need when checking or auditing Sonarr's connected download clients. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools (e.g., when you need to verify client configurations before triggering operations), and no exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits independently. It mentions the blocklist option's purpose (prevent re-grabbing) but omits significant behaviors such as the default removal from the download client (removeFromClient=true) and any consequences for the item in Sonarr. This leaves the agent without a full picture of side 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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key optional behavior. It avoids redundancy and unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain operational behavior such as whether removal from the download client is intended (despite the schema default), how the queue item is affected, or when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The schema covers parameters but not the tool's broader context.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for all three parameters, with detailed descriptions in the input schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, only restating the blocklist parameter's purpose without elaborating on ids or removeFromClient. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 specifies the action (remove) and the resource (Sonarr download queue), and distinguishes it from related tools such as sonarr_get_queue and sonarr_delete_from_blocklist. The phrase 'one or more items' also clarifies 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 description implies usage for removing items from the download queue, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sonarr_get_queue or sonarr_delete_from_blocklist. There are no exclusions or conditional guidance, making the usage implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It simply states 'Delete' without noting that the operation is destructive, irreversible, or may affect series that use the tag. No warnings or side-effect information is given.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no wasted words and is easy to parse.
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 one-parameter delete tool, the purpose and parameter are clear. However, given the absence of annotations and the destructive nature of the operation, the description lacks crucial behavioral context such as irreversibility or impact on associated resources.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'tagId' with a description ('Tag ID (from sonarr_get_tags)'). The description adds only 'by ID', which does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema.
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'), the resource ('a tag'), and the method ('by ID'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like sonarr_create_tag and sonarr_get_tags.
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 when to use it (when you need to delete a tag) but does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. It could mention that tag IDs come from sonarr_get_tags, which is only hinted in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, what data it accesses beyond naming configuration, what the output looks like, or potential side effects. 'Compare' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated, and there's no mention of required permissions or error conditions.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and adds a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits any information about the return format, success/failure behavior, or the scope of the comparison. It covers the essential purpose and a prerequisite, but for a tool that compares against external recommendations, users would benefit from knowing what the comparison output contains.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a brief description ('Which service', 'Which media server you use'). The description itself adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: 'Compare your naming configuration against TRaSH Guides recommendations.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like trash_compare_profile (profile comparison) and trash_get_naming (naming retrieval).
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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires the corresponding *arr service to be configured') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like trash_get_naming or trash_compare_profile. It implies usage for validation against TRaSH recommendations but lacks exclusionary or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this involves network calls, caching, potential delays, or what the response structure looks like. It's minimally transparent but lacks detail.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core function.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the caller can expect in return. It doesn't mention the return format, whether sizes are in MB/GB, or if the result is grouped by quality. For a simple getter, this is adequate but leaves gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.
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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: TRaSH Guides recommended min/max/preferred file sizes per quality level. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on profiles, naming, or custom formats.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or contrast with other trash_* tools. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate destructive behavior via 'remove' and 'delete files from disk', but it does not explicitly state that the action is permanent, whether permissions are required, or how it affects related data like episode history. It provides some transparency but lacks depth.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by optional flags. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 low complexity of a simple delete operation and full parameter schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It states the main function and both optional behaviors, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's use. It lacks deeper context about consequences, but that is not critical for such a straightforward operation.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description merely paraphrases the optional booleans ('Optionally delete files... add to import exclusions') without adding new technical semantics. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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: 'Remove a series from Sonarr.' It also mentions optional behaviors (delete files, add to import exclusions) that differentiate it from other delete tools like sonarr_delete_episode_file or sonarr_bulk_delete_series. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
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 alternatives such as sonarr_bulk_delete_series. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool only searches and returns candidates, and implicitly that grabbing is a separate step. However, it omits potential side effects, rate limits, result limits, or pagination behavior. It adds useful detail about return fields but is not exhaustive.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then summarizes return content, and ends with a useful next-step pointer. Every sentence contributes.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what is returned and how to use the result. It doesn't mention sorting, result limits, or error scenarios, but these are less critical for this basic search operation.
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?
The schema fully documents the episodeId parameter, including where to obtain it (from sonarr_get_episodes). The description adds no additional parameter-level nuance, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 an action ('Search indexers') with a specific scope ('for a specific episode') and outcome ('Returns release candidates with quality, size, seeders, and rejection reasons'). This distinguishes it from broader search tools like sonarr_search_all or sonarr_search_missing.
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?
It gives a follow-up instruction to use sonarr_grab_release with guid and indexerId, but does not explain when to choose this tool over sibling search tools (e.g., sonarr_search_episode vs manual release search). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only intent through 'List' and mentions the filter capability, but it does not describe output format, external dependencies, or any limitations. The minimal context is sufficient for a listing operation but lacks depth beyond what the name already implies.
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 concise and front-loaded, using two sentences to state the purpose and filter options. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or extraneous information.
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?
The tool is a simple list operation with well-documented parameters, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what is returned. It does not mention return structure or source of the TRaSH Guides data, leaving a gap for a tool with no annotations or output schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by enumerating the valid category values (hdr, audio, resolution, source, streaming, anime, unwanted, release, language), which are not specified in the schema. This enrichment for the category parameter elevates the score.
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 clearly states it lists TRaSH Guides custom formats, using the verb 'List' and identifying the specific resource. It also mentions the optional category filter, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sonarr_list_custom_formats or trash_list_profiles, so it stops short of a 5.
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 usage by stating what the tool does and listing the filter categories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is present but not directly tied to decision-making, so it falls into the 'implied usage' category.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('rename episode files') but does not disclose that this is a mutating operation with potential irreversible effects, does not mention auth requirements, and does not describe the return value. The 'omit to rename all' detail is already in the schema, adding no new behavioral context.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no filler words. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema), and the description covers purpose and param usage. However, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should ideally mention what the command returns and any side effects; it does not, leaving some gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (the single param seriesIds has a description). The tool description repeats the param behavior ('omit to rename all') but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the specific verb 'Rename' and identifies the resource 'episode files on disk', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like sonarr_refresh_series or sonarr_trigger_rescan_series. The purpose is unambiguous and precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it renames files to match Sonarr naming settings. It explains how to scope the operation ('Pass specific seriesIds or omit to rename all'), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name related tools, so it stops short of a full guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the scope ('all series') and purpose, but does not disclose side effects, destructiveness, or performance impact of a full disk scan. Lack of this information is a significant gap for a trigger command.
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, well-formed sentence that immediately states the action and purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter command with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but omits practical details such as asynchronous execution, potential impact, and how it differs from similar sonarr_trigger_* tools. It is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly implies that no input is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter explanation is necessary.
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 a specific action: rescanning the disk for all series to link unknown existing files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_refresh_series (metadata refresh) and sonarr_trigger_downloaded_scan (scan of downloaded files). It is precise and unambiguous.
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 the use case: after manually adding files to disk that Sonarr hasn't detected. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives such as sonarr_refresh_series. The context is clear but not contrasted with similar commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It notes the mutation nature via 'Update' and mentions enabling/disabling, but does not state whether other fields are overwritten, if permissions are required, or if the change is reversible. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words; it efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and primary usage.
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?
The tool has three parameters, all covered by schema, and no output schema. The description is minimal but adequate for a simple update operation. However, it lacks any mention of side effects, prerequisites (beyond listId being required), or return values, which would improve completeness for an unannotated mutation tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (listId, enabled, enableAuto). The description adds minimal semantic value by stating the primary use case (enable/disable), which maps to the 'enabled' parameter, but does not go beyond what the schema provides.
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 verb ('Update') and specific resource ('import list in Sonarr'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_import_lists. It also adds a primary use case ('primarily used to enable or disable it'), which further clarifies intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (updating an import list, especially to enable/disable it). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the primary use case is stated, which is sufficient for this simple mutation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes a valuable warning that misconfigured sizes can block all imports, which is an important side effect. However, it does not mention whether changes are permanent, require permissions, or what the response indicates, leaving some gaps.
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 two sentences: the first states the action clearly, the second provides a critical warning. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
The tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to cover risks and outcomes. It does warn about a major risk, but it omits other important context like reversibility, persistence, or how to obtain the definitionId (though the schema references sonarr_review_setup). Overall, it is adequate but has clear gaps.
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?
The schema already describes all parameters with units and optionality (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that these are size limits but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, except implicitly linking them to the warning.
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 ('Update') and names the exact resource ('min/max/preferred size limits for a quality tier'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tool sonarr_update_quality_profile by focusing on quality definitions (size limits) rather than quality profiles.
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 intended use is implied by the description ('Update the min/max/preferred size limits'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The warning about verifying values implies a cautious approach but does not give concrete usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions the effect (removal) and consequence (release can be grabbed again), but does not mention reversibility, idempotency, or potential side effects. For a destructive operation, this is adequate but not rich.
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 that directly states the action and purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description plus schema sufficiently explain what the tool does and what is needed. The only minor omission is the return value or error behavior, but for a delete operation this is not critical.
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?
The input schema provides a complete description for the only parameter (blocklistId, from sonarr_get_blocklist), covering 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Remove'), the resource ('an entry from the Sonarr blocklist'), and the intended outcome ('so that release can be grabbed again'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_blocklist and sonarr_remove_from_queue.
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 the use case (unblocking a release) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation ('Get') and that blank seriesId returns recent activity, but does not state it is read-only, discuss pagination behavior, or mention any side effects. The minimal behavioral disclosure is insufficient given the absence of 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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 has three optional parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the basic use cases: retrieving history and filtering by series. It does not mention return structure or pagination defaults, but those are partially present in the schema. For a straightforward read tool, the description is adequately complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that seriesId filtering is optional and that leaving it blank returns all series activity, but page and pageSize are only described in the schema. Overall, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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 tool retrieves download history, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('download history'). It additionally explains the filtering modes, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like queue or blocklist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete usage context: filter by seriesId or leave blank for recent activity across all series. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance on both filtering modes is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. The 'get' in the name hints at non-destructiveness, but the description itself provides no behavioral context beyond the listing action.
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 that conveys the essential information without waste. The examples of source types are useful and do not add unnecessary length. It is perfectly concise.
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 simple, parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool lists and gives examples. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., fields of the import list objects), but given the low complexity and lack of an output schema, this is a minor omission.
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, so the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true with no properties). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain.
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 tool performs a 'List' operation on a specific resource ('configured import list sources') in Sonarr. It provides concrete examples (Trakt, IMDb, Plex Watchlist) that distinguish it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_quality_profiles or sonarr_get_health. The verb and resource are explicit and unambiguous.
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 usage (when you need to see configured import lists) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of related tools like sonarr_update_import_list or when not to use this getter. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get,' but it does not explicitly disclose any behavioral traits such as response format, authentication requirements, or side effects. With no annotations available, this minimal transparency is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.
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 that fully captures the tool's purpose. Every word is informative, with no filler or redundancy.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'where'. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it could mention the return value structure if not for the absence of an output schema.
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?
Since the tool has zero parameters, there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but this is acceptable given the empty parameter set, meriting the baseline score.
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 the specific verb 'Get' with a precise resource ('file and folder naming configuration') and clarifies the source ('Sonarr (TV)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trash_get_naming, which deals with naming recommendations rather than the actual Sonarr configuration.
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 alternatives such as trash_get_naming. The description states only what the tool does, not the context or exclusions, so an agent has no information to decide between similar-looking tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (listing missing monitored episodes) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as sorting, default pagination semantics, or that it is read-only. The 'Get' verb implies a read operation, but more detail (e.g., that it only includes episodes with airdate in the past) would enhance transparency.
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 unnecessary words. It clearly conveys the essential purpose without redundancy, earning a top score for conciseness.
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 simple paginated list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and pagination. It does not explicitly mention return fields or sorting, but for a basic lookup, it is sufficiently complete. Slightly more detail about what 'missing' means in a Sonarr context would make it fully explicit.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides descriptions for page and pageSize. The description only hints at pagination via 'paginated', adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema documents. This matches the baseline of 3.
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 ('Get') and resource ('paginated list of monitored episodes that are missing'), and clarifies the meaning of 'missing' as 'not yet downloaded'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_wanted_cutoff, which targets cutoff-unmet episodes.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sonarr_get_wanted_cutoff or sonarr_search_missing. However, the wording 'missing (not yet downloaded)' implies its purpose, giving reasonable context without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it indicates a trigger action, it does not disclose potential side effects, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or any requirements (e.g., series being monitored). This is a notable gap for an action that could trigger background tasks.
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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. No unnecessary words, and it earns its place.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly specifies the action and scope (all missing episodes in a series). However, it could be slightly enhanced by mentioning that it triggers a command, but overall it is sufficient.
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?
The single parameter seriesId is fully described in the schema with a reference to sonarr_get_series. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Trigger a search') and the target ('all missing episodes in a series'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like sonarr_search_episode (single episode) and sonarr_get_wanted_missing (listing, not triggering).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case: when you want to initiate a search for all missing episodes of a series. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over related search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without revealing whether the backup runs synchronously, overwrites existing backups, requires specific permissions, or returns a status identifier. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation-like operation.
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, clear sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary filler. Every word contributes 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it lacks any note about asynchronous behavior or how to verify the backup's success, which would make it fully context-rich. Still, for such a simple trigger, it remains mostly complete.
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 the schema is an empty object. With no parameters to explain, the description naturally adds no parameter-specific semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.
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 ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource (an on-demand backup of Sonarr configuration and database). It distinguishes from sibling trigger tools (e.g., RSS sync, cutoff search, rescan) by uniquely targeting backup creation.
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 'on-demand' implies use when an immediate manual backup is desired, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives, and it doesn't compare to other trigger commands, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that an RSS sync is triggered, but does not mention whether the command is asynchronous, has side effects like indexer load, or returns a command status.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the action and scope with no wasted words.
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 simple parameterless trigger command, the description covers the essentials: what is triggered and its scope. It could mention asynchrony or a returned command object, but the absence of an output schema makes this less critical.
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 takes no parameters, as shown by the empty schema. The description correctly implies this by mentioning no inputs, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, so no additional parameter details are needed.
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 ('Trigger an immediate RSS feed sync') with a precise scope ('across all configured indexers in Sonarr'), distinguishing it from sibling trigger tools like sonarr_trigger_cutoff_unmet_search.
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 usage by naming the exact operation, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cutoff unmet search, refresh monitored downloads) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses the safe verb 'Get' indicating a read operation, which is good, but it does not disclose whether this retrieves live data from an external source, whether it is cached, or what format the response takes. It adds little beyond the verb and parameter context.
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 that states what the tool does and for whom. It avoids verbosity, repetition of schema details, and includes only useful context (the media server list). Every word earns its place.
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 tool's simplicity (2 fully documented params, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the purpose and supported media servers. However, it does not describe the return format or whether the output is a raw string or a structured object, which would be helpful in the absence of an output schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters: service ('Which service') and mediaServer ('Which media server you use'). The description repeats the media server values but does not add deeper semantics, such as the meaning of 'standard' or how the chosen service affects the naming recommendations. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 begins with a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'TRaSH Guides recommended naming conventions'. It also mentions the target context (Plex, Emby, Jellyfin, or standard), distinguishing it from siblings like 'sonarr_get_naming' which retrieves local settings, and 'trash_compare_naming' which compares naming setups.
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 usage by stating that it fetches recommended conventions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No references to sibling tools or exclusions are provided, so the guidance is only implicit, not direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only says 'Add a TV series' without detailing whether it overwrites existing entries, triggers any post-add actions, requires specific permissions, or returns a confirmation. No behavioral traits beyond the bare action are disclosed.
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 two concise sentences, with the purpose stated first and prerequisite mapping in the second. Every word contributes, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
The description provides important prerequisite context and leverages the 100% schema coverage, but it omits any information about return values, error behavior, or what happens if the series already exists. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the minimum needed to gather inputs but leaves notable gaps in predicting the tool's response.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value by mapping parameters to their source tools (e.g., rootFolderPath from sonarr_get_root_folders, qualityProfileId from sonarr_get_quality_profiles). This clarifies not just what the parameters are, but how to obtain correct values, exceeding the schema's basic descriptions.
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 'Add a TV series to Sonarr' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sonarr_update_series and sonarr_delete_series. The action is unambiguous and immediately understood.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit prerequisite guidance by naming the exact preceding tools to use for each required parameter (sonarr_search, sonarr_get_root_folders, sonarr_get_quality_profiles, sonarr_get_tags). This is strong usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives in a comparative sense.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'trigger' and gives a use case, but does not explain whether the operation is asynchronous, idempotent, or impacts the queue. It fails to disclose potential side effects or what happens after triggering, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral expectations.
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 fluff. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's action and purpose, making it highly concise for a 0-parameter tool.
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 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on what 'monitored downloads' refers to, whether it triggers a background task, and how to check the result (e.g., via sonarr_get_command_status). The gap with similar trigger tools is not addressed, leaving room for confusion.
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 0 parameters, so the description need not explain parameter syntax or semantics. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly remains silent on inputs.
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 states a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('Sonarr to refresh its view of monitored downloads'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like sonarr_refresh_series and sonarr_trigger_downloaded_scan. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'useful for checking stalled or stuck downloads' provides clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would push it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('from disk') and the important behavioral outcome ('episode remains in Sonarr as unmonitored'), which goes beyond just stating the action. It does not mention irreversibility or permission requirements, but the key effects are covered.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and appends a parenthetical to explain the post-deletion state. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
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 single-parameter delete operation, the description is quite complete. It explains the effect on disk and on the episode's monitoring status. It doesn't explicitly warn about irreversibility or list prerequisites, but these are largely self-evident given the schema and context. Sibling tool differentiation could be stronger, but overall it provides enough context.
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?
The input schema already provides a clear description for fileId ('from sonarr_get_episode_files'), and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific episode file from disk') and adds crucial context that the episode record remains in Sonarr as unmonitored. This distinguishes it from bulk deletion and other Sonarr tools.
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 word 'specific' implies this is for deleting one file at a time, and the existence of sonarr_delete_episode_files_bulk suggests an alternative, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this vs bulk deletion. It provides implied usage but no explicit guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful domain context by explaining that blocklisted releases won't be re-grabbed. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it) or describe pagination behavior beyond what the schema already provides.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the meaning of the blocklist. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple paginated list retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains the domain concept (blocklist), and the schema covers pagination parameters. It could optionally mention the return type, but the tool name and description make it clear it returns a list, so it is sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (page, pageSize), and the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.
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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'Sonarr blocklist' and clarifies what the blocklist contains (blocked/failed releases that won't be re-grabbed). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_delete_from_blocklist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this is the retrieval operation for the blocklist, which implies when to use it (when you want to view blocked/failed releases). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'Get' naturally contrasts with delete/modify siblings, making the usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that the return includes 'full specification details,' but it doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only operation, describe error behavior, or mention any permissions needed. For a simple get tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 fluff. It clearly states the action, the target, and the scope in minimal words.
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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It indicates what is returned ('full specification details') and references the ID source in the schema. It could add error handling details or explicitly confirm non-mutation, but given the simplicity, it's reasonably comprehensive.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%; the schema's description of formatId is clear ('Custom format ID (from sonarr_list_custom_formats)'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 tool gets a single custom format by ID, with a specific verb (Get) and resource (custom format by ID). It also distinguishes from the sibling list tool by indicating it's for a single item rather than listing all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' gives clear context for when to use this tool (when you have a specific format ID). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not detail return format, potential size of data, permissions required, or any other behavioral traits. It is not misleading but lacks context.
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, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter getter, with no wasted words or redundancy.
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 simple, zero-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. It could potentially mention that it returns usage statistics, but the scope and intent are clear enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no parameter information that needs to be explained. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.
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 ('Get') with a specific resource ('disk space usage') and scope ('all Sonarr root folders and mounts'). This clearly distinguishes it from any sibling tool, as no other tool mentions disk space.
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 usage when you need disk space information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns warnings/problems, which is useful. However, it does not mention any potential side effects (though a read-only get operation implies none) or return format nuances, such as whether an empty list is returned when healthy. It adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.
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 consists of two short sentences—20 words total—and immediately states the action and resource. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is responsible for conveying what the tool returns. The statement 'Shows any problems the application has detected' covers the output concept adequately. For a zero-parameter health check, this is sufficiently complete, though it could have mentioned that it returns a list of warnings with severity/message details.
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 the schema covers 100% of them (none). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The absence of parameters is implicitly clear from the schema, and the description adds no extra meaning, which is acceptable here.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('health check warnings' from Sonarr). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on health checks, and the clarification 'Shows any problems the application has detected' reinforces its unique role.
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 usage context—when you want to see application health warnings—but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like arr_status or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The usage is clear but not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying safety. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical explains the meaning of 'import exclusions'. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral characteristics beyond the bare fact that it returns a list.
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 that states the action and the resource. The parenthetical adds useful context without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.
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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential information: it lists import-excluded series and clarifies the meaning. It is complete enough for a simple, parameterless list tool, though it omits any details about the returned fields or potential errors.
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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly says nothing about parameters because there are none to explain.
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 the exact resource ('series that are excluded from import'). The parenthetical clarification ('blocked from being re-added after deletion') removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from related tools like sonarr_get_blocklist and sonarr_delete_import_exclusion.
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 usage by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it, nor any reference to sibling tools that might overlap. The context suggests it is for reading exclusions, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses 'Get' implying a read-only operation and mentions 'full details', but it does not disclose error responses, not-found behavior, or authentication requirements. It adds some context about included elements, but more explicit safety/behavioral disclosure would be beneficial.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence provides a practical usage prerequisite. No redundancy or wasted words.
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 simple single-get tool, the description covers what it returns (full details with quality items and custom format scores) and a key use case (before update). Without an output schema, it doesn't specify the exact response shape or error cases, leaving minor gaps, but overall it is complete enough for this tool complexity.
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?
The input schema has full description coverage (100%) for profileId, noting it comes from sonarr_get_quality_profiles. The tool description repeats 'by ID' but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a single Sonarr quality profile by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'sonarr_get_quality_profiles' (plural). It also specifies key content (quality items, custom format scores), which removes ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Required before calling sonarr_update_quality_profile', giving a concrete when-to-use. It does not explicitly name alternatives like sonarr_get_quality_profiles, but the 'single by ID' scope implies when to choose this over the list version, so usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of the output (allowed qualities, upgrade settings, custom format scores) and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication, response format, or edge cases like empty profile lists, so transparency is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds value. There is no redundant information or filler.
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 parameterless GET tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the data fields returned. The only gap is not clarifying the relationship to sonarr_get_quality_profile, but that is a minor omission for such a simple operation.
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, so the input schema is empty and the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to clarify.
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 ('Get') and resource ('quality profiles from Sonarr (TV)'), clearly identifying the tool's scope. It also lists the key contents (allowed qualities, upgrade settings, custom format scores), which distinguishes it from the singular sonarr_get_quality_profile and trash guide profile tools.
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 usage when one needs Sonarr quality profiles but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the singular sonarr_get_quality_profile or when not to use it. It provides no exclusions or named alternatives, though the 'from Sonarr' disambiguates it from trash guides.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read-only operation via 'Get' and 'Shows', but offers no detail on queue semantics (e.g., whether paused items are included) or response format. It is not misleading but adds limited behavioral context beyond the obvious.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. Every phrase adds value (current, active, progress).
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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It states what it returns (downloads and progress) and the context (current queue). It could mention whether the queue includes queued items, but that is a minor gap for an AI agent selecting the tool.
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?
The only parameter, 'limit', already has a clear description in the schema (max items, default 10). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current Sonarr download queue'), and clarifies it shows active downloads with progress. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sonarr_get_history (past items) and sonarr_remove_from_queue (mutation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this is for viewing current queue status, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'current' and 'download queue' wording makes the appropriate scenario obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys that the tool returns a paginated list and defines the filtering criteria (has a file but below quality cutoff), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention sort order, whether only monitored episodes are included, or potential error conditions.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key criteria. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 simple list tool with only optional pagination params and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly defines the returned items. A minor gap is lack of mention of filtering by monitored status or sort order, but these are not critical for the tool's core purpose.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (page and pageSize), each with descriptive labels and defaults. The description does not add param-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('paginated list of episodes that have a file but have not met the quality cutoff'), and explicitly labels them as 'upgrade candidates'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_wanted_missing, which likely targets episodes without files.
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 usage context is implied by the description (use when you need upgrade candidates), but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions. The agent can infer when to use it from the description, but lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'send it to the download client,' implying a side effect, but does not mention reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior. It is not misleading, but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and an explicit next step. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, prerequisite, and parameter source. It does not explain return values, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, this is acceptable.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already described as 'from sonarr_search_releases' in the schema. The description merely repeats that instruction without adding new format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.
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: 'Grab a specific release and send it to the download client.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling sonarr_search_releases by focusing on the action of grabbing rather than searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Use sonarr_search_releases first to find the guid and indexerId.' This names the related tool and establishes usage order. It does not explicitly exclude other alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool lists custom formats, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose potential authorization requirements, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every phrase ('with their IDs and specifications') adds useful detail. This is a model of conciseness.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward list action), the description provides the essential information: what it lists and what details are returned. It could optionally mention that the result is a list of all formats, but that is already clear. The description is complete enough for this low-complexity tool.
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, so the schema provides no parameter information. According to the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description adds context about what the output includes (IDs and specifications), which indirectly helps the agent understand what to expect, though it doesn't need to explain parameters.
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 'List all custom formats defined in Sonarr with their IDs and specifications' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('custom formats') and scope ('all'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonarr_get_custom_format by specifying 'all', and clarifies output content (IDs and specifications).
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 when to use the tool (when you need an overview of all custom formats), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like sonarr_get_custom_format or trash_list_custom_formats exist, but no guidance is given on when to choose this over them. Thus, usage is implied but not explicitly detailed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core action but does not disclose any side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites beyond what the schema provides. For a write operation, it lacks details about how it affects existing monitoring, failure modes, or permission requirements, but it is honest about the primary behavior.
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 sentence of 8 words, conveying the essential action without fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy 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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the what and the scope, though it could mention differentiating from season-level monitoring (sonarr_season_pass) or note the destructive nature of overwriting existing status. Still, it is complete enough for an agent to understand the core function.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the two parameters (monitored and episodeIds) are fully documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, simply reinforcing that the operation is bulk. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 a specific action: 'Bulk set monitored/unmonitored status for specific episodes.' It identifies the verb (set), the resource (monitored/unmonitored status), and the scope (specific episodes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_episodes or sonarr_season_pass.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for bulk updating episode monitoring status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the schema's episodeIds description referencing sonarr_get_episodes gives a hint about where to obtain IDs. The simplicity of the tool makes the usage obvious, so it earns a 4 rather than 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('import') but does not state side effects (e.g., permanent file moves), permission requirements, failure behavior when invalid items are passed, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains zero redundant words. It is concise and easy to parse.
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 tool is a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what to pass and optionally how to filter. It does not explain what the return value is or what happens on failure, but for a tool with such straightforward inputs, this is a minor gap.
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 schema already documents the 'items' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds practical guidance on the source of the items (from sonarr_get_manual_import) and suggests optionally filtering out items with rejections, which goes beyond the schema's description and adds meaningful usage semantics.
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 ('Confirm and import files') and specifically references the companion tool 'sonarr_get_manual_import', distinguishing it from other operations. It is specific, uses a verb+resource structure, and is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to pass the items array from the preview response and optionally filter to importable items with no rejections, providing clear workflow context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist, but the reference to the preview tool implies the proper sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral details like the fixed result limit ('top 10 results') and the inclusion of 'tvdbId', but does not disclose other potential response fields, error handling, or rate limits. Given the absence of annotations, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 two short sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding the key output detail. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it does, what it returns (top 10 results with tvdbId), and how it connects to the next step (sonarr_add_series). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though a brief note on result format or sorting could make it more complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (term described as 'Series name to search for'), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose ('by name') but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. No additional parameter details are provided, so the description is not particularly informative beyond the schema.
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 ('Search') and resource ('TV series by name'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sonarr_search_episode or sonarr_search_releases. It also states the output scope ('top 10 results') and the key data returned ('tvdbId'), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly positions this tool as a prerequisite for sonarr_add_series ('needed for sonarr_add_series'), giving clear context on when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the linkage to add_series is a strong usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It clearly states the search scope (all monitored episodes with files below quality cutoff), but it does not disclose operational characteristics such as whether the trigger is asynchronous, how to monitor command status, or potential impact on the download queue. The description is not misleading but leaves out important behavioral context.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Trigger a search') and immediately specifies the scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no superfluous text.
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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete for its purpose. It clearly defines what the trigger does and what it targets. However, it could be improved by mentioning how to check the command status or that the operation is asynchronous, but this is a minor gap given the zero-parameter nature and existing sibling tools like sonarr_get_command_status.
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, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds value by clarifying exactly what the tool operates on—episodes that are monitored, have a file, and lack quality cutoff compliance. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description is meaningful despite having no parameters.
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 ('Trigger a search') and clearly defines the resource: 'all monitored episodes that have a file but have not met the quality cutoff (upgrade candidates)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_search_missing (missing episodes) and sonarr_search_episode (specific episode).
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 usage when you want to find upgrade candidates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sonarr_get_wanted_cutoff (which lists candidates without triggering a search) or sonarr_search_missing. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It conveys that this is a mutating action (importing files) and requires a path, but it does not disclose whether the command runs asynchronously, returns a command ID, or has side effects like potential duplicate imports. The description is accurate but lacks deeper behavioral detail.
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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and purpose, the second clarifies the required parameter with an example. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple one-parameter trigger tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, and what input is needed. However, it doesn't mention what the user should expect in response (e.g., command ID or status), which would make it fully complete. Given the simplicity, a 4 is reasonable.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (single 'path' parameter with a helpful description). The tool description essentially repeats the schema's parameter description and adds an example. It doesn't add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's verb and resource: 'Force a scan of a completed downloads path to import any files that were not auto-imported.' This distinguishes it from sibling trigger tools like sonarr_trigger_rescan_series (which scans series folders) and sonarr_process_manual_import (manual imports). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when files were not auto-imported, you force a scan of the completed downloads path. It also specifies the required input (absolute path). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Shows' results, implying a read-only operation, and lists the categories of output. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it describe authentication needs or any potential side 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Compare your quality profile against TRaSH Guides recommendations'). Every sentence provides value: the first states what it does, the second adds output details and a prerequisite. No wasted words.
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 simple three-parameter comparison tool, the description covers the core purpose, the output content, and a key prerequisite. Since there is no output schema, the description partially fills that gap by naming the shown categories. It could be more complete by specifying the output structure, but it is adequate for this complexity level.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing that profileId is 'your quality profile' and trashProfile is a 'TRaSH profile name'. It does not introduce new parameter semantics.
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 ('Compare') and resource ('your quality profile' against 'TRaSH Guides recommendations'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like trash_compare_naming. It also enumerates specific outputs (missing custom formats, scoring differences, quality settings), leaving no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the usage context clear: it is for comparing quality profiles against TRaSH Guides. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires the corresponding *arr service to be configured'), which helps the agent know when this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns comprehensive profile details including custom format scores and quality settings, which sets expectations for the response. It does not mention potential side effects or error cases, but as a read-only get operation, the lack of such info is acceptable.
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 that conveys the essential action and outcome without any fluff. Every phrase adds value, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the types of data included (custom format scores, quality settings, implementation details). However, it does not describe the response structure or any nested objects, which may leave an agent uncertain about how to parse the result. The tool's complexity is moderate, so the description is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'profile' includes examples and 'service' specifies the enum values. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: retrieving a specific TRaSH Guides quality profile, and enumerates the included data (custom format scores, quality settings, implementation details). It distinguishes from sibling tools like trash_list_profiles (which likely lists profiles) and trash_compare_profile (which compares them) by emphasizing 'specific'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this when you need details for a single, known profile. The 'specific' modifier implies this is for fetching one profile, contrasting with listing all profiles. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use other tools, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses key traits: simultaneous search across services, a fixed result limit (top 5 per service), and an optional type filter. This goes beyond a simple 'search' statement. It does not cover error handling or ranking criteria, but for a read-only search tool, sufficient behavioral context is provided.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no filler. Each sentence delivers essential information: the cross-service search, the result limit, the use case, and parameter guidance. This is appropriately concise.
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 (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers purpose, use case, key behavior, and filtering. It mentions the result limit but not the exact return structure or potential error cases. Given no output schema and the straightforward nature of a cross-service search, the description is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-described in the schema. The description only restates the type filter usage ('Use the type filter to narrow'), adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool searches across all configured *arr services simultaneously, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('all configured *arr services'). It also distinguishes itself from single-service search tools like sonarr_search by emphasizing the cross-service scope, and notes the return limit of top 5 results per service.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for finding whether something is already tracked in any service.' It also offers guidance on using the type filter to narrow searches. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the cross-service vs. single-service distinction is implicit from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns that setting deleteFiles to true is destructive and irreversible, emphasizing the key risk. It does not disclose other side effects (e.g., whether the series record itself is removed or any auth requirements), but it addresses the primary hazard clearly enough to merit a 4.
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 two sentences: the first states the purpose directly, and the second delivers a critical warning. Both earn their place with no redundant filler, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
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 delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most important context: the destructive nature of deleteFiles. It omits details about the addImportListExclusion parameter's effect, but that is documented in the schema. Overall it is sufficiently complete given the schema richness, but could have briefly mentioned the non-destructive default.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, each with clear descriptions (e.g., deleteFiles marked 'IRREVERSIBLE'). The description adds a warning that duplicates the schema's own note, so it provides little additional semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: 'Bulk delete multiple series from Sonarr.' It uses a specific verb ('delete'), resource ('series'), and scope ('bulk multiple'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'sonarr_delete_series' that presumably targets a single series.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Bulk delete multiple series' indicates this tool is for deleting multiple series at once, implying it should be used instead of the single-series delete sibling for batch operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does state the core behavior (changing monitored status, quality profile, or tags via a single API call), but it doesn't disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or what happens to unlisted fields. The lack of these details leaves some ambiguity for a mutation tool.
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 concise, using just two sentences. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose and key parameters, and the second sentence adds valuable usage guidance. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, key fields, and distinguishes from siblings. However, it doesn't mention return behavior, error handling, or the applyTags detail (though that is in the schema). For a bulk update tool, this is fairly complete, but a bit more context about expected outcomes would push it to 5.
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?
All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The description adds the context that this is a bulk operation and mentions the key fields, but it doesn't go beyond the schema in explaining parameter syntax or relationships. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's function: bulk updating multiple Sonarr series, specifying the exact fields (monitored status, quality profile, tags). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool sonarr_update_series, which is a single-series update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by saying 'Use this instead of calling sonarr_update_series in a loop.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over an alternative, though it doesn't mention any cases where the single update might be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of deletion (all files for a series or season) and that seriesId is 'resolved automatically,' which is useful. However, it fails to mention that deletion is likely irreversible, any permission requirements, or what happens if conflicting parameters (fileIds and seriesId) are passed. For a destructive bulk operation, this is a notable gap that keeps it from being fully transparent.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core action, and the second explains the two invocation modes. Every word earns its place with no filler. It is easy to scan and directly informs usage.
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 description is mostly complete for invocation: it covers the purpose, both parameter modes, and the alternative to the singular delete tool. However, it omits edge-case behaviors (e.g., conflict resolution if both fileIds and seriesId are provided, or whether seasonNumber can be used without seriesId) and provides no information about return values or errors. Given no output schema, a bit more detail would be ideal, but the core context is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the schema's parameter meanings (explicit fileIds, seriesId/seasonNumber combination) without adding significant new semantics. It does clarify the 'instead of loop' reasoning, but that is more about usage than parameter semantics. Thus, it does not elevate above baseline.
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 tool's function: 'Delete multiple episode files at once.' It goes beyond a generic verb by specifying the resource (episode files) and the bulk nature. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'sonarr_delete_episode_file' by explicitly recommending this tool instead of looping, which resolves ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use instead of calling sonarr_delete_episode_file in a loop.' It also outlines two distinct usage modes (explicit fileIds vs. seriesId/seasonNumber), making it clear when each is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the alternative is clearly named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only polling operation (via 'Poll') but does not disclose return format or potential errors. This is adequate but minimal.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary detail.
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 with one parameter. The description provides usage context and parameter provenance. No output schema exists, but the return value is implicitly a status, and the description is sufficient for this low-complexity tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for commandId, and the description adds practical guidance on where to obtain the parameter value ('returned by the trigger tool'), which goes beyond the schema.
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 states the specific action 'Poll the status' of an async command and gives examples (RescanSeries, RefreshSeries). It clearly distinguishes from sibling trigger tools by focusing on status retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly notes this is for commands 'previously triggered' and instructs to pass the commandId from the trigger tool, indicating when to use it. It doesn't mention alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned data (quality, size, codecs, languages) and warns that large responses can occur if seasonNumber is omitted. It doesn't elaborate on response format or performance limits beyond the size warning.
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?
Two concise sentences; the first states purpose, the second offers a practical tip. No wasted words and well front-loaded.
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 straightforward read operation with two parameters, the description covers what is retrieved and how to filter effectively. It lacks an explicit statement of return type (e.g., array of objects), but this is a minor gap given no output schema exists.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a rationale for using seasonNumber (avoid large responses), but provides no additional parameter details beyond the schema's brief descriptions.
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 tool retrieves file details for episodes in a series, listing specific attributes (quality, size, codecs, languages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_episodes, which likely handle episode metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context that seasonNumber can filter results to a single season to avoid large responses, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the response shows which episodes are available and which are missing, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond just 'get'. It also hints at response size implications with the season filter note.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.
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 relatively simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool returns (available/missing episodes) and how to narrow results. It lacks details about response structure but that is not required for a tool of this complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both seriesId and seasonNumber adequately described. The description reinforces the purpose of the season filter (reducing response size) but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') and resource ('episodes for a series'), and includes scope details (availability status, optional season filter). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_episode_files (which focuses on files) and sonarr_get_wanted_missing (which lists missing episodes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you need episode listings for a series) and even gives a practical tip ('Filter by season to reduce response size'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating what the preview shows (quality, matched series/episode, rejection reasons) and implies this is a read-only operation via the word 'preview.' However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, pagination details, or any side effects. The description provides moderate transparency but leaves some gaps.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place. The first states the action and output; the second gives explicit guidance. No filler or unnecessary repetition.
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 has 4 parameters, but the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it shows, and how to proceed with the result. Since there is no output schema, the description gives a good sense of the return values. It does not mention pagination or filtering, but those are documented in the schema. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it effectively.
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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it explains the overall operation but leaves the schema to handle individual parameter meanings. This is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
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 tool's purpose: 'Scan a folder and preview how Sonarr would match each file for manual import.' It uses a specific verb (scan/preview) and resource (folder), and distinguishes itself from the sibling sonarr_process_manual_import by positioning this as the preview step. This is unambiguous and well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly names the alternative tool: 'Use sonarr_process_manual_import to confirm.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to preview) versus the alternative (to confirm/execute). It directly addresses the most relevant sibling and establishes a workflow, satisfying the 'explicit alternatives' criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'List' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, return format, or any edge cases. The description offers some context with 'all configured' but remains minimal on behavioral details.
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 that immediately identifies the verb and resource. It includes parenthetical examples for clarity without unnecessary length. Every word serves a purpose.
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 has no parameters and no output schema. The description clearly states what the tool does and gives examples of provider types, which is adequate for a simple listing operation. It could mention that it returns configuration details, but the absence is not a significant gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 the schema is trivial. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's purpose without parameter ambiguity.
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 states 'List all configured notification providers in Sonarr' with a specific verb and resource, and includes examples ('webhooks, email, Slack, etc.') that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_quality_profiles or sonarr_get_download_clients.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this tool is for listing notification providers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. For a simple list tool, the purpose alone provides sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Get') which implies read-only, but does not explicitly disclose that it has no side effects, or mention authentication requirements or return format nuances. For a read tool, the 'Get' verb is sufficient but minimal, earning a mid-range score.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.
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 tool's low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the key return content ('root folders and free space') and the purpose (finding rootFolderPath values). It does not detail the exact return structure, but the use case makes it clear enough for the agent to invoke and interpret the result.
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, and the schema coverage is 100% since there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.
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 'Get root folders and free space from Sonarr (TV)' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the use case 'find valid rootFolderPath values when adding media.' This differentiates it from other storage-related tools like sonarr_get_disk_space.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to find valid rootFolderPath values when adding media.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough to avoid misuse. No sibling is named as an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds value by disclosing that only summary fields are returned, preventing the agent from expecting full detail. It also explains the rationale behind the default limit, which is behavioral context. It does not mention read-only status explicitly, but the 'get' verb implies a safe read operation.
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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function and providing behavioral/usage context. There is no redundant content or excessive detail.
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 simple list endpoint with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context: what it retrieves, the summary-only nature, the default limit, and the search-before-pagination guidance. It could mention read-only safety or return field specifics, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The input schema already covers all three parameters with full descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small hint about using 'search' early for filtering, but does not elaborate on offset or limit format beyond the schema. Overall, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond structured data.
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 'Get TV series from the Sonarr library' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from other tools by noting 'Returns summary fields only' and referencing 'search' for filtering, setting it apart from episode or search tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It advises 'use search to filter before paginating', providing explicit guidance on ordering operations. It also explains that the default limit is intentionally set to 25 to keep context usage low, which helps the agent decide whether to adjust pagination. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, nor does it describe pagination, sorting, or output fields. The added hint about using tag IDs gives some context about the return value, but it is not a full behavioral disclosure. A score of 3 reflects that it is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks explicit details.
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 two short sentences covering both the core function and a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary detail is present.
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 a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to be exhaustive. It tells the agent what the tool returns (all tags) and how to use the results (tag IDs when adding media). However, it does not list the exact fields returned (e.g., id, label), which could be considered a minor gap. Given the simplicity and the hint about IDs, a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly adds no parameter information, as there is nothing to describe. According to the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description adds value by explaining how to use the output (tag IDs for adding media), which complements the lack of parameters.
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 tool's function: 'Get all tags defined in Sonarr (TV).' The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'all tags' precisely identifies the operation, and the parenthetical '(TV)' scopes it to Sonarr specifically. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like sonarr_create_tag and sonarr_delete_tag by focusing on retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use tag IDs when adding media.' This tells the agent when the output of this tool is valuable—when preparing to add media that requires tag IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm it makes no changes. The phrase 'suggest improvements' could be misinterpreted as the tool generating recommendations, whereas it likely only returns configuration data for the agent to analyze. It also does not disclose potential performance cost from aggregating multiple settings.
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?
Three sentences, each with a clear purpose: classification, content list, and usage guidance. No redundant or vague wording.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description lists the main categories of returned data, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it. It could be improved by explicitly stating read-only behavior and whether the output is a structured summary, but the current coverage is adequate for broad selection and invocation.
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 the schema already covers everything; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information but also does not need to.
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 identifies this as a configuration review tool for Sonarr, enumerating the specific data areas it returns (quality profiles, download clients, naming, storage, indexers, health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that each fetch a single setting, such as sonarr_get_quality_profiles or sonarr_get_health.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The final sentence, 'Use this to analyse the setup and suggest improvements,' gives a concrete use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual getters (e.g., if only health is needed), relying instead on the 'in one call' aggregation to imply a broader need.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. The verbs 'List' and 'Shows' imply a read-only operation with no side effects. It adds meaningful context by referencing the TRaSH Guides source and the nature of the output (recommended profiles for use cases). However, it does not disclose whether the data is fetched live or static, or if any authentication is required.
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 two sentences of about 25 words total, with the main action front-loaded. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second sentence clarifies the output's purpose with examples. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is listed and what the output represents. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly. It could optionally mention how the returned profiles might be used with other tools (e.g., trash_get_profile), but that is not essential for correctness.
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?
The input schema already provides a description for the only parameter ('service') and an enum of valid values. The description's phrase 'for Radarr or Sonarr' reinforces the parameter without adding new syntax or format details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('TRaSH Guides quality profiles') and target ('Radarr or Sonarr'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trash_get_profile (which likely gets a single profile) and sonarr_get_quality_profiles (which queries actual server profiles) by explicitly referencing TRaSH Guides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys clear context for when to use the tool: to view recommended TRaSH Guide profiles for various use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over similar profile-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the immediate effect (removal from the exclusion list) and the consequence (re-addability). It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but for a simple delete operation, this is adequate.
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. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and outcome.
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 tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the action and the resulting state change, and the parameter source is specified in the schema. There are no missing critical details for correct invocation.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description ('Exclusion ID (from sonarr_get_import_exclusions)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Remove a series from the Sonarr import exclusion list') and the outcome ('allowing it to be re-added'). This distinguishes it from other delete tools in the sibling list, such as sonarr_delete_series or sonarr_delete_from_blocklist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context: use this tool when you need to remove an import exclusion so a series can be re-added. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the simple scope and clear purpose make the usage obvious, especially with the companion sonarr_get_import_exclusions tool referenced in the param schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparent enough for this simple tool. It also indicates the kind of data returned. However, it does not explicitly state safety traits like 'does not modify data' or mention any potential rate limits, though these are unlikely for a list operation.
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 sentence that is both concise and front-loaded with the key action ('List all scheduled background tasks') followed by relevant output details. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or excessive information.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does and what information is returned (last/next run times and current status). There are no complex contexts, side effects, or prerequisites that need further elaboration.
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 the input schema is an empty object. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it accurately reflects that no input is required. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.
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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all scheduled background tasks in Sonarr'), and specifies the output details (last/next run times and current status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which operate on other resources like health, quality profiles, or series.
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 when to use the tool (when you need information about scheduled background tasks) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like arr_status or sonarr_get_health could potentially overlap in status information, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it fetches the current format first then applies changes, and only fields provided are changed. This is valuable beyond what the schema shows. It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but the core merge behavior is well disclosed.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler. Every word adds value, making it an example of efficient writing.
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 schema's detailed per-parameter descriptions, the description fully captures the essential update behavior. The only nuance—that specifications array is a full replacement—is documented in the schema, so the description is complete enough for effective use.
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?
Schema describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds important semantics about optional fields: 'Only provide fields you want to change' clarifies that omitted fields retain existing values. This goes beyond schema-level optional flags and explains the update strategy.
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 'Update an existing custom format' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/get. Also clarifies the fetch-and-merge behavior, which adds purpose specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Only provide fields you want to change.' This implies partial update semantics and tells the user how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use create instead), but sibling context makes that somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it fetches the existing profile first to avoid overwriting unrelated fields, which is crucial for a mutating tool. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or rollback, but the fetch-first behavior is well articulated.
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?
Two concise sentences deliver the purpose and the critical safety behavior with no redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.
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 6-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the modifiable fields, and the fetch-first safeguard, which addresses the main risk. It does not mention return values or error scenarios, but these are less critical for an update tool given the rich schema and the operational detail provided.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the parameters into meaningful change categories (e.g., 'cutoff quality' maps to the cutoff param) and by noting that the tool fetches the existing profile first, implying that not all fields need to be supplied. This goes slightly beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.
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 the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'Sonarr quality profile' and enumerates the changeable fields (upgradeAllowed, minFormatScore, cutoffFormatScore, cutoff quality, custom format scores), clearly distinguishing it from read-only siblings like sonarr_get_quality_profile and other update tools like sonarr_update_quality_definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (modifying existing quality profiles) and explains the fetch-first behavior to prevent overwriting unrelated fields. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (fetches status and version) and what it's for (verifying reachability). It does not explicitly state side effects, but 'get' and the purpose strongly imply a read-only operation without destructive behavior.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple parameterless status tool, the description is complete. It defines the tool's function and intended use case. No output schema exists, but describing 'connection status and version info' suffices for a basic status check. The sibling context reinforces its distinct role.
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, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The schema is empty, and the description correctly omits parameter information. No parameters means the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get connection status and version info for all configured *arr services.' This uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource (connection status and version info), and scopes it to all *arr services, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_health or arr_search_all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides direct usage guidance: 'Use this to verify which services are running and reachable.' This gives a clear use case and implies when to select this tool over alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-arr-suite MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ismael9291/mcp-arr-suite/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ismael9291/mcp-arr-suite)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-arr-suite MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ismael9291/mcp-arr-suite/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ismael9291/mcp-arr-suite)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ismael9291/mcp-arr-suite'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server