List, create, edit, or remove qBittorrent categories to organize torrents. Specify a name and action; removal requires confirmation.
List, create, edit or remove categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | category name | |
| action | No | list, create, edit or remove | list |
| confirm | No | required for remove | |
| save_path | No | save path for it |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral load. It names 'remove' as an action, which implies a destructive operation, but gives no detail about permissions, reversibility, confirmation requirements, or side effects. The schema's 'confirm required for remove' is not reflected in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and structurally clear, though its brevity contributes to other completeness gaps rather than being a structural flaw.
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?
With a fully described schema and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. However, for a multi-action CRUD tool, it does not clarify which parameters apply to which action or highlight the confirmation requirement for removal, leaving some inference to the agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the action list, which is already captured by the 'action' parameter description.
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 specific actions (list, create, edit, remove) on a specific resource (categories), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools such as 'tags', but the verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing among list/create/edit/remove, and no references to alternatives. It simply lists possible actions without helping an agent decide which action or tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed