Import movies into Radarr by submitting an import request. This adds movies to your library for management.
Create MovieImport.
POST /api/v3/movie/import
Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | 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 signal idempotent (idempotentHint: true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), and the description does not contradict them. It adds that the expected fields are discoverable via the GET or /schema endpoint, which is useful dynamic behavior, but it does not describe side effects, return behavior, or auth requirements.
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 compact and well-ordered: operation, endpoint, then parameter guidance. No filler is present, though the first sentence largely restates the tool name.
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?
The output schema exists and the description points to a schema endpoint for the body, so invocation is reasonably supported. However, it lacks context for selecting this tool among many create_* siblings and does not explain what a MovieImport represents or what the POST accomplishes, leaving a noticeable completeness gap.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0% and an open 'body' object (additionalProperties: true), the description compensates by directing the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover the expected fields. It gives the body parameter a clear role ('Request payload') and an actionable strategy for filling it.
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 ('Create MovieImport') and the HTTP endpoint, making the operation clear. It does not, however, differentiate this from sibling tools like create_manualimport or create_importlist_movie beyond the endpoint, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It provides one explicit instruction: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before constructing the body. This is a useful prerequisite, but it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_manualimport or create_importlist_movie, so usage context is only partially developed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.