Add a torrent to qBittorrent from a magnet link, with optional category, tags, save path, and paused state.
Add a torrent from a magnet link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Comma-separated tags (optional) | |
| magnet | Yes | Magnet URI (magnet:?xt=...) | |
| paused | No | Add in paused state (default: false) | |
| category | No | Category to assign (optional) | |
| savepath | No | Download path (optional, uses qBittorrent default) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say what happens on duplicate magnets, whether the torrent starts immediately or paused by default, what the response contains (e.g., a hash), or what errors occur. Only the one-line purpose is given, leaving the mutation semantics opaque.
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 with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of richer content.
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?
For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits return behavior, error/duplicate handling, and any operational prerequisites. The schema covers parameter shapes, but the tool's runtime behavior is undocumented.
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 every parameter (magnet, tags, paused, category, savepath) is already documented in the schema with types and defaults. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('add a torrent from a magnet link'), making it immediately distinguishable from read, pause, delete, and recheck siblings. It is clear but does no explicit sibling differentiation beyond the magnet-link qualifier.
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 use this versus other torrent-management tools, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., qBittorrent must be running, auth), and no note on behavior for duplicate or already-added magnets. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.