mcp-arr-suite

sonarr_update_series

Update a Sonarr series by changing its monitored status, quality profile, or tags. Manage media library settings directly.

Instructions

Update a series in Sonarr — change monitored status, quality profile, or tags.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "seriesId": "<seriesId>"
    },
    "name": "sonarr_update_series"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Replace tag IDs
`seriesId`	Yes	Series ID (from sonarr_get_series)
`monitored`	No	Set monitored status
`seasonFolder`	No	Use season folders
`qualityProfileId`	No	Change quality profile ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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.

Deploy Server