Retrieve a specific indexer's configuration from Prowlarr by its numeric ID. Use this to inspect or verify indexer settings in your automation workflow.
Read Indexer.
GET /api/v1/indexer/{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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the GET endpoint and path parameter, not additional behavioral context such as auth, errors, or output behavior, but it is consistent with 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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the endpoint and argument. It is not bloated, though it is terse enough that some semantic detail is sacrificed.
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 single-resource GET with a rich output schema and fully declared read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the invocation details: method, path, and required path parameter. It omits alternative-selection guidance, but that is already penalized under usage guidelines.
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 needed to compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. It only labels id as a path parameter and does not explain what identifier it represents or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type.
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 opens with 'Read Indexer.' which states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's basic purpose immediately clear. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like get_indexer_by_id_download or get_indexer_by_id_newznab, so it stops short of full distinction.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling get/read operations. The description gives only the endpoint and path argument, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.