Fetch a static resource from Prowlarr by providing its path, enabling direct access to files served by the API.
Read StaticResource.
GET /{path}
Args: path: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description only adds 'GET /{path}', which is redundant and adds no new behavioral context such as response format, error handling, or side effects.
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 short and the 'Read StaticResource.' line is front-loaded, but the rest is redundant (HTTP method and parameter repetition). It is under-specified rather than effectively concise, as sentences do not add value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 tool with one parameter and a simple read operation, the description still lacks essential context: what constitutes a StaticResource, what the output schema contains, or any error conditions. Even with an output schema present, the description does not help an agent understand the tool's domain or usage.
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?
The description merely repeats 'path: Path parameter.', which is tautological given the schema property name 'path'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate but offers no additional meaning, format constraints, or examples.
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 'Read StaticResource.' which includes a specific verb and a resource type. It is clear that the tool reads a static resource, but 'StaticResource' is not defined further and the name 'get_by_path' is generic. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_content_by_path' which likely serves a similar purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools. The agent has no information to decide between this and 'get_content_by_path'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.