Manage qBittorrent labels: list, create, delete, or assign labels to torrents by hash to organize and filter downloads.
List, create, delete, add or remove tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | No | tag names | |
| action | No | list, create, delete, add or remove | list |
| hashes | No | torrents, for add and remove | |
| confirm | No | required for delete |
| 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 burden. It implies mutation by listing create/delete/add/remove but never states that delete is destructive or irreversible, that 'confirm' is mandatory for deletion, or whether any permission is needed.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and all supported actions, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a five-action tool.
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 four optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that covers return values, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the action-to-argument mapping and the destructive/confirm behavior, which a multi-action mutation tool should surface.
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 documented in the schema itself (names, action, hashes 'for add and remove', confirm 'required for delete'). The description contributes nothing about argument semantics, which is acceptable at baseline when the schema is complete but earns no credit.
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 names the resource (tags) and enumerates five operations, so the agent knows it is a tag-CRUD multiplexer. However, it is a bare verb list with no indication of what each action targets, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling 'categories' tool, which is a near-identical concept.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over 'categories', nor on which arguments each action requires. The verb list mirrors the 'action' enum in the schema, so it adds no routing information.
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