Delete a specific metadata entry from Radarr using its ID. Solves the need to remove unwanted metadata configurations directly.
Delete Metadata.
DELETE /api/v3/metadata/{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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds no behavioral context beyond the raw endpoint, such as whether deletion is permanent, cascades, or requires confirmation. With annotations covering the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 and front-loads the action, but it includes redundant endpoint documentation and a docstring-style 'Args' block that adds no value. It is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently complete.
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 destructive single-parameter tool, the description is minimal. It does not explain what metadata entity is targeted, what the response contains, or any side effects. The output schema exists, but the description still lacks enough context for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool among dozens of similar delete tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'id: Path parameter.' It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag. The description does not explain what the id refers to or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the low schema 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 'Delete Metadata' and includes the HTTP DELETE endpoint, which clearly identifies the operation and resource. However, it does not specify what kind of metadata is being deleted or how this differs from the many other delete_*_by_id siblings, so it is clear but not differentiated.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_movie_by_id or delete_tag_by_id. The description only repeats the endpoint and parameter, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.