Retrieve the current host configuration settings from Prowlarr to verify or troubleshoot server bindings, ports, and security options without manual checks.
Read HostConfig.
GET /api/v1/config/host
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 known. The description adds only the HTTP method and endpoint, with no extra context about output shape, auth, or side effects; that is acceptable for a trivial read but adds little beyond 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 two short lines: a one-sentence action and the endpoint. No filler, and the verb/resource are front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter, annotated, read-only tool with an output schema, this is complete enough for correct invocation. Nothing important for calling it is missing, though usage guidance is absent and captured separately.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no semantics to clarify. The description does not need to describe parameters, and no ambiguity exists.
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 names a specific operation ('Read') on a specific resource ('HostConfig') and includes the exact GET endpoint, so an agent can tell it is the read path for host configuration. It does not explicitly contrast with get_config_host_by_id or other list_config_* siblings, but the endpoint and resource make the purpose clear.
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 is given about when to choose this tool over list_config_development, list_config_downloadclient, get_config_host_by_id, or update_config_host_by_id. The read-only nature is implied by 'Read' and GET, but no exclusion or alternative is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.