qbt-kit

server_info

Retrieves the qBittorrent server version, authentication mode, and endpoint availability so clients can verify compatibility and access before making API calls.

Instructions

Server version, auth mode and endpoint availability.

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": "server_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not explicitly state that this is a side-effect-free read or that no authentication beyond the configured mode is needed. It does disclose the categories of information returned (version, auth mode, endpoint availability), which is behavioral value beyond the schema's empty property list, but permissions and safety profile remain unstated.

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?

A single compact fragment with no filler, and the key content categories are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a trivial no-argument tool, though the telegraphic style stops just short of a fully self-contained statement.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and with zero parameters there is no input surface to document. What remains missing is the safety/auth framing that would normally come from annotations, but for a low-risk read-only info call the current text is close to sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% and there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for.

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 names the three things the tool reports (server version, auth mode, endpoint availability), which is enough for an agent to recognize it as a server-level diagnostics tool and to distinguish it from siblings like transfer_status and list_endpoints. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but for a zero-parameter info tool that still communicates purpose effectively.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. The context is only implied by the tool's content, so an agent must infer on its own whether to reach for server_info versus transfer_status or list_endpoints.

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