Reset Bazarr provider statuses to clear errors or stale states, restoring normal operation.
Reset providers status.
POST /api/providers
Args: action: Action to perform from ["reset"]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it resets status but provides no additional behavioral context such as side effects, scope (all providers vs. specific), or state changes. It does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes the endpoint and parameter specification without filler. While minimal, it efficiently conveys the necessary information for a single-parameter tool.
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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the action and allowed value, but omits context about the scope and effect of resetting provider status, which might be ambiguous for an agent. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists the action parameter and the allowed value 'reset', which the schema does not provide as an enum. This is essential for correct invocation and goes beyond the minimal schema definition.
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 action ('Reset providers status') and resource ('providers'), making the tool's purpose clear despite the misleading 'create' prefix. It distinguishes from siblings like create_providers_episodes and create_providers_movies by specifying a reset operation, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'status' entails.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and does not help an agent decide between this and other provider-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.