get_torrentRetrieve a torrent's magnet link by its ID. Use the ID from prior search or popular results to get the direct download link for immediate access.
Get the magnet link for a specific torrent by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| torrent_id | Yes | Torrent ID returned by a previous search_torrents or popular_torrents call. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.3Input schema / properties / torrent_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Torrent ID returned by a previous search_torrents or popular_torrents call."v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation returning a magnet link, and the existence of an output schema covers the return structure. It does not mention error behavior or prerequisites beyond the ID, but for a simple getter this is sufficient.
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, front-loaded sentence states the verb, output, and selection key with no filler. Every element earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple, has one required parameter, has an output schema, and the description plus parameter description fully specify how to call it and where the ID comes from. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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% and the parameter description already explains that torrent_id is returned by previous search or popular calls. The tool description adds little beyond restating 'by id', so the schema carries the semantic weight and the description meets the baseline.
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 clear verb ('get') and resource ('magnet link for a specific torrent by id'), which fully distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_torrents and popular_torrents that find torrents rather than resolve a single known torrent to its magnet link.
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 the tool is used after obtaining a torrent_id, and the parameter description explicitly says the ID comes from a previous search_torrents or popular_torrents call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.