Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
qBittorrent MCP Server

qBittorrent MCP Server

by mattmaas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

qbittorrent_delete_torrents

Delete torrents from qBittorrent by hash(es) or 'all'. Optionally remove downloaded files from disk.

Instructions

Delete one or more torrents. Optionally also delete downloaded files.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hashes": "<hashes>"
    },
    "name": "qbittorrent_delete_torrents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashesYesTorrent hash(es), pipe-separated or 'all'
delete_filesNoAlso delete downloaded files from disk (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly notes optional file deletion, but omits crucial destructive-operation context: irreversibility, that both torrent and files may be unrecoverable, and any auth/prerequisite details.

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?

Two compact sentences with no waste. The key destructive scope is front-loaded and the file-deletion option follows immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a two-parameter tool, but given the destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description should at least state permanence and any side effects on disk usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains hashes (pipe-separated or 'all') and the delete_files boolean. The description adds only the word 'Optionally' for file deletion, matching baseline 3.

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?

States a clear verb (Delete) and resource (torrents). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling operations like pause or recheck, but destruction is sufficiently distinct in the qBittorrent toolset.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not warn that this is irreversible or compare it to non-destructive operations like pause.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools