Delete a specific Prowlarr command by its ID to remove pending or completed tasks. Use when you need to cancel or clear a command from the system.
Delete Command.
DELETE /api/v1/command/{id}
Args: id: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | 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 state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description merely repeats 'Delete' without adding behavioral context such as irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens to dependent resources. With annotations covering the destructive profile, the description contributes no additional transparency.
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 concise and front-loaded, with 'Delete Command' first, followed by the HTTP method, path, and argument. There is no filler, though it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient clarity.
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 simple one-parameter delete operation, the description identifies the resource and parameter location, but it lacks any explanation of the id semantics, expected behavior, or relationship to sibling command tools. The annotations and output schema cover safety and return structure, but the description alone leaves the agent without enough context to confidently confirm this is the correct deletion target.
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 by explaining what 'id' refers to. It only says 'id: Path parameter,' which adds no semantic meaning beyond the path template and the required integer schema. The description does not clarify that id is the command ID to be removed.
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 ('Delete Command') and the HTTP DELETE endpoint with an {id} path parameter, making it clear that this tool deletes one command by its identifier. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and verb are unambiguous and distinct from get_command_by_id or create_command.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites, such as checking that the command exists before deletion. The DELETE method and single id parameter imply a delete operation, but there is no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.