Fetch properties, trackers, and files for a torrent by hash to inspect its qBittorrent download details.
Properties, trackers and files for one torrent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | torrent hash |
| 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 of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about read-only safety, authentication needs, or whether the hash must reference an existing torrent. It discloses the returned data categories but no operational 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?
A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the returned content. It is efficient, though the fragment style omits the action verb that would make it fully self-contained.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the one parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, with zero annotation coverage the description should say more about the read-only nature and the requirement that the hash identify an existing torrent.
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% with a single 'hash' parameter documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, source, or validity detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (a torrent) and enumerates the specific data returned (properties, trackers, files), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling, but 'for one torrent' does distinguish it from list_torrents.
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?
Usage is only implied: the singular 'one torrent' suggests this is the detail view versus the list view in list_torrents, but the description never states when to choose this tool or what precondition (a known hash) is required. No alternatives or exclusions are named.
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