Remove a specific import list exclusion from Radarr by its unique ID. Use this to undo an exclusion when a movie should be considered for automatic import again, simplifying list management.
Delete ImportListExclusion.
DELETE /api/v3/exclusions/{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 communicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds the specific target being destroyed (ImportListExclusion) and the HTTP DELETE method, but does not discuss side effects, permanence, or error behavior. This is reasonable but minimal given the annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the action, followed by the endpoint and argument. There is no filler or redundant explanation; every line earns its place.
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-parameter delete tool with destructive and idempotent annotations plus an output schema, the description provides the necessary invocation details: the resource, the endpoint, and the path parameter. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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 schema only indicates that id is a required integer; the description adds that id is a path parameter and shows its exact placement in the URL. For a one-parameter delete operation, this is meaningful invocation guidance and compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 verb and resource: 'Delete ImportListExclusion.' The endpoint DELETE /api/v3/exclusions/{id} makes it clear this operates on a single exclusion by ID, distinguishing it from bulk exclusion deletion and other delete-by-id siblings.
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 instead of alternatives such as delete_exclusions_bulk or delete_importlist_by_id. The appropriate use case—deleting a single exclusion by its ID—is implied by the name and endpoint but never articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.