c411.org でのトレント検索、トレントのメタデータやコメントの取得、.torrent ファイルのダウンロードを行うための MCP (Model Context Protocol) サーバーです。
Related MCP server: RuTracker MCP Server
c411.org でのトレント検索
infoHash による詳細なトレントメタデータの取得
infoHash によるページ分割されたトレントコメントの取得
infoHash による .torrent ファイルのダウンロード
認証済みセッションの自動再利用
期限切れ認証の自動再試行（短い遅延と上限付き再試行回数）
資格情報の欠如、無効な資格情報、メンテナンスモードによる失敗の区別
タイトル、サイズ、シード数、および利用可能な場合は infoHash を含む構造化された検索結果の返却
npm installサーバーはデフォルトで stdio トランスポートを使用します：
npm run devまたは、ビルドして実行します：
npm run build
npm startC411.org はトレントリストへのアクセスに認証を必要とします。ログインを有効にするには：
以下の環境変数を設定します：
C411_USERNAME: c411.org のユーザー名
C411_PASSWORD: c411.org のパスワード
サーバーは自動的にログインし、セッションを維持します。
資格情報がない場合、サーバーは検索結果を取得できない可能性があります。
サーバーは認証失敗時に、より詳細なエラーを返そうとします：
資格情報の欠如: C411_USERNAME と C411_PASSWORD を要求します
無効な資格情報: ユーザー名またはパスワードが拒否されたことを報告します
メンテナンスモード: c411.org が一時的に利用不可であることを報告します
Download a .torrent file from c411.org by its infoHash and save it to disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| infoHash | Yes | The 40-character hex infoHash of the torrent | |
| outputDir | No | Directory where the .torrent file should be saved. Defaults to /tmp. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | No | |
| success | Yes | |
| filename | No | |
| savedPath | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Successfully discloses the side effect ('save to disk'), indicating filesystem mutation. However, lacks details on idempotency, network requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid hash), or output structure despite having an output schema available.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, dense sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb, immediately communicating purpose. Every clause earns its place: source domain, identification method, and persistence mechanism are all efficiently packed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and existing output schema. Covers the essential 'what' and 'where to' aspects. Minor gap: could briefly mention the return value indicates success/failure or file path since annotations are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. Description adds value by clarifying the infoHash's role in identifying the specific torrent to retrieve ('by its infoHash'), and implicitly connects the outputDir to the 'save to disk' action. Could mention the default /tmp behavior explicitly, but overall adds meaningful usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: states the verb ('Download'), resource ('.torrent file'), source ('c411.org'), identifier ('by its infoHash'), and side effect ('save to disk'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings 'get_c411_torrent_info' and 'search_c411' through the explicit action of downloading vs retrieving metadata or searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage context through the specific action ('download... save to disk'), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance contrasting with siblings. Does not state prerequisites (e.g., valid c411.org infoHash) or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get comments for a c411.org torrent by its infoHash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| infoHash | Yes | The 40-character hex infoHash of the torrent | |
| page | No | Comment page number. Defaults to 1. | |
| limit | No | Number of comments per page. Defaults to 20. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| limit | Yes | |
| total | No | |
| comments | Yes | |
| infoHash | Yes | |
| totalPages | No | |
| resultCount | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose behavioral traits: no mention of pagination behavior (despite page/limit params), rate limits, authentication requirements for c411.org, or handling of empty comment sets. 'Get' implies read-only but does not confirm it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single efficient sentence of 9 words. Front-loaded with verb, zero redundancy, every token carries meaning (domain, resource, identifier).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a read operation given 100% schema coverage and existence of output schema (which handles return value documentation). Could be improved by mentioning pagination or empty state handling, but functional for tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds minimal semantics beyond schema—only linking infoHash to the retrieval operation via 'by its infoHash'. Schema already documents the 40-character hex pattern and pagination defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'comments for a c411.org torrent' clearly identifies the operation. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings: targets comments (not download, info metadata, or search index) and specifies the external domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context by identifying the specific resource (comments) and required identifier (infoHash), implicitly distinguishing from sibling torrent operations. However, lacks explicit workflow guidance (e.g., 'use after search_c411 to retrieve infoHash').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed metadata for a c411.org torrent by its infoHash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| infoHash | Yes | The 40-character hex infoHash of the torrent |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| size | No | |
| tmdb | No | |
| error | No | |
| files | No | |
| title | No | |
| trust | No | |
| status | No | |
| seeders | No | |
| success | No | |
| category | No | |
| infoHash | Yes | |
| leechers | No | |
| uploader | No | |
| createdAt | No | |
| fileCount | No | |
| sizeBytes | No | |
| completions | No | |
| isExclusive | No | |
| isFreeleech | No | |
| subcategory | No | |
| descriptionHtml | No | |
| lowBitrateWarning | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only states it's a read operation ('Get') targeting metadata. It fails to disclose what 'detailed metadata' specifically includes, error conditions for invalid hashes, rate limits, or caching behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 10 words with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb 'Get', immediately identifies the resource (c411.org torrent metadata), and specifies the lookup key (infoHash). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for a simple 1-parameter tool with output schema present (no need to describe return values). Sufficient for invocation but could be improved by explicitly mentioning the sibling workflow (obtain hash via search_c411 first).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the infoHash parameter fully documented including pattern validation. The description mentions 'by its infoHash' but adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema's existing '40-character hex infoHash' description, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'detailed metadata for a c411.org torrent' and scope identifier 'by its infoHash'. This clearly distinguishes from sibling download_c411_torrent (content vs metadata), get_c411_torrent_comments (metadata vs comments), and search_c411 (specific hash lookup vs broad search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by its infoHash' implicitly signals you must already possess the hash to use this tool, distinguishing it from search_c411. However, it lacks explicit guidance on the prerequisite workflow (search first, then this tool) or when to prefer alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for torrents on c411.org
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query for torrents | |
| sortBy | No | Sort criteria for the search results. Defaults to relevance. | relevance |
| sortOrder | No | Sort order for the search results. Defaults to desc. | desc |
| page | No | Result page number. Defaults to 1. | |
| perPage | No | Number of results per page. Defaults to 25. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| query | Yes | |
| total | No | |
| perPage | Yes | |
| results | Yes | |
| totalPages | No | |
| resultCount | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about network requirements, rate limits, authentication, idempotency, or whether results are cached. The minimal description offers no 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence 'Search for torrents on c411.org' is appropriately sized with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler text, making it efficiently scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 100% parameter schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description does not need to elaborate on return values or parameter details. However, it lacks mention of the typical workflow (search → download/info) that would complete the context for an agent selecting among the four related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters (query, sortBy, sortOrder, page, perPage). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, which warrants the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('torrents on c411.org'), clearly identifying the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_c411_torrent_info' (which retrieves specific torrent details by ID 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.
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 fails to mention that search results are typically prerequisite for using sibling tools like 'download_c411_torrent' or 'get_c411_torrent_info', or that this is the entry point for discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0download_c411_torrentget_c411_torrent_commentsget_c411_torrent_infosearch_c411Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: downloading torrent files, retrieving comments, getting metadata, and searching. The descriptions specify unique actions on the same domain (c411.org torrents), with no overlap that would cause misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'c411' as a prefix (e.g., download_c411_torrent, search_c411). The naming is uniform, using snake_case throughout and clear action descriptors.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for interacting with a torrent search site. Each tool serves a distinct function (search, info, comments, download), making the count appropriate and efficient for the domain.
The toolset covers core operations for torrent discovery and retrieval (search, get info, get comments, download), with no obvious dead ends. A minor gap might be the lack of upload or management tools, but for a client-focused server, this is reasonable.
Tor gateway for AI agents: fetch URLs and rotate circuits through Tor, Bitcoin-settled.
Search the Wayback Machine and IA library (40M+ items), fetch snapshots, item metadata, and text.
Route HTTP requests through the Tor network. Rotating exit IPs, .onion support, no body logging.
Search, URL-to-markdown, change detection, live data, x402 trust tools. USDC pay-per-call.