Lists resources available at a specified root path, providing a clear overview of accessible Prowlarr API endpoints.
Read StaticResource.
GET /
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, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as response characteristics or side effects, going beyond what annotations provide.
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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It includes a confusing 'GET /' alongside a required path parameter, and it lacks a clear front-loaded statement of purpose. Each sentence does not earn its place because the essential information is missing.
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?
Despite being a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what resource is being read, preventing an agent from knowing when to call it or what value to supply for 'path'. The description does not provide enough context for correct invocation.
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 only parameter, 'path', is a required string in the schema. The description merely says 'path: Path parameter,' which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what the path should refer to or its expected format.
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 says "Read StaticResource," which is vague and does not clearly explain what the tool does or what a StaticResource is. The tool name is list_root, but the verb 'read' conflicts with the implication of listing, and there is no differentiation from siblings like get_by_path or get_content_by_path.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to call it, when not to, or provide any comparison to sibling tools. An agent cannot determine the appropriate context for invoking list_root.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.