Remove a TV series from Sonarr, with optional disk file deletion and import list exclusion to prevent re-import.
Delete a series from Sonarr. Optionally delete files from disk. WARNING: This cannot be undone!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Sonarr series ID to delete | |
| deleteFiles | No | Also delete files from disk (PERMANENT) | |
| addImportListExclusion | No | Add to import list exclusion to prevent re-import |
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 burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: irreversible deletion ('cannot be undone'), optional disk-level file removal, and a re-import prevention side-effect is left to the parameter description. It doesn't mention permission or confirmation requirements, but the core irreversibility warning is a meaningful addition.
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?
Three short sentences, all front-loaded and earning their place: purpose, option, and warning. No redundancy or filler.
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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential risk (irreversibility) and the file-deletion option. It could go further on prerequisites or return behavior, but it is largely complete for the agent's needs.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters including 'PERMANENT' and 'import list exclusion'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Delete a series from Sonarr'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like sonarr_add_series and sonarr_edit_series. An agent immediately knows this is the destructive removal operation.
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?
The description implies when to use it (to delete a series) and flags the optional file deletion, but does not name alternatives or exclusions—e.g., no mention of when to use sonarr_edit_series instead, or whether series must exist first. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.