Create a new tag to categorize and manage indexers or applications in Prowlarr. Submit the required request payload with tag details to add it.
Create Tag.
POST /api/v1/tag
Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with covering safety. It adds the API endpoint and the need to discover the resource schema via GET or /schema, which is useful operational context beyond 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 compact and well-structured: a clear action, the endpoint, and an Args section with a direct payload instruction. There is no filler or redundant explanatory material; every line serves a purpose.
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?
Given that the body is an opaque object with additionalProperties allowed, the directive to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is a good way to fill the gap. With annotations covering safety/idempotency and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete for invoking the tool, though it omits what a 'tag' is in this system.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'body' as the request payload and directs the agent to consult GET or /schema for expected fields, which is helpful. However, it does not actually describe any fields or the structure of the body object, leaving the agent reliant on another endpoint.
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 'Create Tag' and gives the POST /api/v1/tag endpoint, which is a specific verb and resource. It is clear enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like update_tag_by_id and delete_tag_by_id, though it adds little beyond the tool name.
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 instruction to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' gives useful procedural guidance for preparing the request. However, it does not explicitly state when to use create_tag versus alternative tools or any exclusions, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.