qbt-kit

transfer_status

Monitor qBittorrent global transfer rates, limits, and connection status to verify download/upload performance and diagnose connectivity issues.

Instructions

Global transfer rates, limits and connection status.

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": "transfer_status"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0

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 behavioral burden, yet it only lists the returned data categories. It never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free call, nor mentions any auth or rate-limit considerations, leaving the agent to infer the safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler. Everything present contributes to identifying the tool's data scope, and nothing is wasted.

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 no parameters and an output schema that already documents the return structure, the description only needs to identify the data scope, which it does. It could still note the read-only nature, but that gap is minor given the simplicity of the tool.

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 is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 clearly enumerates what the tool surfaces: global transfer rates, limits, and connection status. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource construction and offers no differentiation from potentially overlapping siblings like server_info or swarm_health, so it falls short of a 5.

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 indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as server_info, list_endpoints, or swarm_health, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the generic name and the data categories alone.

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