Delete a movie from Radarr by its ID, optionally removing its files and adding an import exclusion to prevent re-adding.
Delete Movie.
DELETE /api/v3/movie/{id}
Args: id: Path parameter. delete_files: Query parameter. add_import_exclusion: Query parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| delete_files | No | ||
| add_import_exclusion | No |
| 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 agent knows this is a destructive but idempotent operation. The description adds the HTTP method and parameter names but does not disclose consequences like whether delete_files removes media from disk or whether add_import_exclusion prevents re-import. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it adds limited behavioral context beyond them.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but the 'Args' section is mostly redundant with the schema and adds little information. It is not bloated, but it doesn't earn all its lines.
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 tool with no output schema details and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what delete_files or add_import_exclusion do, what the response is, or what side effects occur. The annotations cover safety but not the operational semantics needed to invoke it correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only labels the parameters as 'Path parameter' and 'Query parameter' without explaining their meaning or effect. The schema provides types and defaults, but the description adds no semantic value about what delete_files or add_import_exclusion actually do.
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 Movie') and includes the HTTP endpoint, which clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_movie_editor and delete_moviefile_by_id by targeting a single movie by id, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_movie_editor (bulk delete) or delete_moviefile_by_id (delete a movie file). The endpoint and parameter names imply usage, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.