qBittorrent MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: delete_torrent removes torrents, download_torrent adds new torrents, get_torrent_info retrieves status, list_search_plugins shows available plugins, pause_torrent and resume_torrent control torrent state, and search_torrents finds new torrents. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., delete_torrent, download_torrent, get_torrent_info). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set, with no deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing torrents in qBittorrent. It covers core operations like adding, removing, controlling, and querying torrents, plus search functionality, without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for basic torrent management, including CRUD-like operations (download, delete, get info) and state control (pause/resume). A minor gap is the lack of tools for managing torrent properties (e.g., setting priorities, moving files) or categories/tags directly, but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
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
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Pause a torrent' implies a state change operation, it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether pausing is reversible, what happens to partially downloaded data, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. The structure helps scanning, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, as a state-changing operation, the description should provide more behavioral context about what pausing entails and any side effects, which it lacks.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds that 'torrent_hash' is the 'Hash of the torrent to pause', which provides basic semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain hash format, length, or where to obtain it, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.
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 the tool's purpose with 'Pause a torrent' - a specific verb (pause) and resource (torrent). It distinguishes from siblings like 'resume_torrent' and 'delete_torrent' by specifying the pause action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings in the description text itself.
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 doesn't mention when to pause versus resume or delete a torrent, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or appropriate situations for pausing. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 mentions using 'qBittorrent's search plugins' but doesn't detail behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if plugins are disabled. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving key operational aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the sections more seamlessly, but overall, it's efficient and well-organized.
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 complexity (a search tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic function and parameters but lacks depth in behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema helps by specifying return values, but the description doesn't fully address the tool's operational nuances.
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 description adds some meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'query' is a 'Search query string', 'plugins' is a 'Comma-separated list of plugin names or "all" for all enabled plugins', and 'category' filters by specific categories. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions (e.g., no examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline for partial coverage.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for torrents using qBittorrent's search plugins.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('torrents'), and mechanism ('using qBittorrent's search plugins'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_search_plugins' (which might list available plugins rather than search with them), leaving room for minor 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'download_torrent' (for downloading after search) or 'list_search_plugins' (for checking available plugins), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing plugins enabled) or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and basic function, lacking explicit 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'paused' parameter default but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this starts an immediate download, requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens if the URL is invalid, or if it overwrites existing files. The return statement is vague ('Status information').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than a separate Args block.
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 complexity of a download operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context (permissions, errors, side effects). The existence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values, but the vague 'Status information' could be more informative.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies optional vs required parameters, default values, and basic semantics (e.g., 'tags' as comma-separated). However, it doesn't provide examples or constraints (e.g., URL format).
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 the action ('Download a torrent') and the resource ('by URL or magnet link'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'search_torrents' or 'get_torrent_info', which would require 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 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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'pause_torrent' or 'resume_torrent' that might be used after downloading.
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 tool lists search plugins with their status, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'status' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose. The second sentence adds return value information, which is useful but could be integrated more smoothly. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more polished in structure.
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 low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It states what the tool does and hints at the return format. However, with no annotations and behavioral gaps, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving room for improvement in transparency.
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, with 100% schema description coverage (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. No additional value is required beyond stating the action.
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 the tool's purpose: 'List all available search plugins in qBittorrent.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('search plugins'), and includes the scope ('all available'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are mostly torrent management tools rather than search plugin tools, so the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or related tools. Given the sibling tools focus on torrent operations, this tool stands alone for search plugins, but no explicit usage context is provided.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that deletion can optionally include files, which hints at destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to partially downloaded torrents. The return value is vaguely described as 'Status message' without indicating success/failure patterns.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Arg/Return sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.
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 destructive operation with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks important context about irreversible consequences, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description's 'Status message' is too vague to fully understand behavioral outcomes.
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 description provides clear semantic meaning for both parameters beyond the schema's basic types: 'torrent_hash' is explained as 'Hash of the torrent to delete' and 'delete_files' as 'Also delete downloaded files' with its default value. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't explain hash format or file deletion scope.
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 the action ('Delete a torrent') and the target resource ('from qBittorrent'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pause_torrent' or 'resume_torrent' in terms of permanent removal versus temporary state changes.
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 like 'pause_torrent' or 'resume_torrent'. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate versus other torrent management operations.
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 ('Resume a paused torrent') but lacks behavioral details such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent (resuming an already active torrent), side effects, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure enhances readability and efficiency.
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 (one parameter, simple action) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Status message'), the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, parameter, and return value. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling) and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps for this straightforward 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'torrent_hash' as 'Hash of the torrent to resume', clarifying the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., hash length, encoding) or examples, leaving gaps in documentation. With 0% coverage and one parameter, this meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate.
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 the verb ('Resume') and resource ('a paused torrent'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pause_torrent' and 'delete_torrent' by specifying the opposite action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'download_torrent' might also involve torrent manipulation).
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., torrent must be paused), exclusions (e.g., cannot resume if deleted), or comparisons to siblings like 'pause_torrent' for toggling states. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 states the tool returns 'List of torrent information' but doesn't describe what that information includes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a torrent client.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter behavior but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or what 'torrent information' entails, which could be important 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?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'torrent_hash' is optional and clarifies the behavior when omitted ('returns all if not provided'), which isn't evident from the schema alone. Since there's only one parameter, this provides adequate compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 the tool's purpose as 'Get information about torrents in qBittorrent' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('torrents'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_search_plugins' or 'search_torrents' which might also provide torrent-related information.
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 provides implied usage guidance by explaining that the 'torrent_hash' parameter is optional and that omitting it returns all torrents. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_torrents' or clarify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
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:

[![qbit-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jabberjabberjabber/qbit-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jabberjabberjabber/qbit-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![qbit-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jabberjabberjabber/qbit-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jabberjabberjabber/qbit-mcp)

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/jabberjabberjabber/qbit-mcp'

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