Fetch monitored movies that have no files, returning your Radarr wanted list with paging and sorting controls.
Get wanted/missing movies. Shows movies that are monitored but don't have files yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| sortKey | No | Sort field | releaseDate |
| pageSize | No | Items per page | |
| sortDirection | No | Sort direction | descending |
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 burden. It usefully discloses the semantics of the returned set (monitored, missing files), but says nothing about permissions, result size, or how paging interacts with the result set, which matters for a listing endpoint with 4 paging/sorting params.
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?
Two sentences, no waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguating definition of 'wanted' immediately after.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly; it could go further by noting that results are paged and sortable, but nothing essential is missing.
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 pagination/sort parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax, defaults, or sorting semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('wanted/missing movies') and then defines the resource in operational terms ('monitored but don't have files yet'), which lets an agent distinguish it from radarr_get_all_movies or radarr_search_movies without opening the schema.
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 by the definition of the return set; there is no explicit 'use this when... instead of...' statement and no sibling is named as an alternative, even though radarr_get_all_movies and radarr_get_calendar are plausible confusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.