qbt-kit

list_torrents

Fetch qBittorrent torrents filtered by status, tag, or category. Sort and limit results to track downloads, seeds, or errors.

Instructions

List torrents, with the fields that usually matter.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_torrents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	No	tag name
`full`	No	return every field rather than the useful subset
`sort`	No	field to sort by, e.g. progress
`limit`	No	maximum rows
`status`	No	all, downloading, seeding, completed, stopped, stalled, errored
`category`	No	category name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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, yet it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say the operation is read-only, how results are paginated or ordered, or what happens with large result sets. Only the vague 'fields that usually matter' hints at return shaping.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste. Its brevity leans toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully annotated, so return values and parameters are covered elsewhere. But with no annotations and no usage guidance, the definition leaves behavioral expectations (read-only nature, ordering defaults) to inference.

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 all six parameters (tag, full, sort, limit, status, category) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('List torrents') and hints at a curated field subset, distinguishing it implicitly from torrent_detail. However, 'the fields that usually matter' is vague and doesn't sharpen the differentiation from its siblings.

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 versus torrent_detail, search, or list_endpoints, and no statement of exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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