Fetch Prowlarr localization data to read language strings and translations. Provides direct access to localized content for managing interface settings.
Read Localization.
GET /api/v1/localization
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP method, but it does not contradict the annotations either.
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 clear summary and the full endpoint. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every element adds useful information for a tool with no parameters.
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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The endpoint is explicit, and return values are presumably covered by the output schema.
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, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4; the schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to compensate.
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 ('Read') and resource ('Localization'), and provides the exact HTTP endpoint. It is not a tautology and is understandable, though it does not elaborate on what the localization resource contains or explicitly differentiate it from list_localization_options.
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 use this tool vs alternatives. With sibling list_localization_options present, the description does not explain the distinction, leaving the agent to infer which tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.