Retrieve a specific movie collection's details by its unique ID from Radarr. Use this to fetch collection information for a given collection ID.
Read Collection.
GET /api/v3/collection/{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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no mention of return format, pagination, permissions, or any side effects. Since the description provides zero additional transparency, it does not meet the bar set when annotations are present.
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 concise and structured (endpoint followed by args), but it is so under-specified that it borders on insufficient. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices necessary information. A 3 reflects that the format is acceptable while the content is lacking.
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?
There is an output schema, so return values don't need explanation, but the tool still lacks context about what a collection is, what the ID refers to, or how this differs from related endpoints. Given the large sibling set, this minimal description leaves the agent unable to confidently use the tool.
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 carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It only repeats 'id: Path parameter,' which adds nothing beyond the schema's integer type and required flag. No meaning, format, or constraints are provided, making it useless for an agent trying to construct a valid call.
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 'Read Collection' which clearly indicates a verb and resource, but it is extremely generic and does not distinguish this from the many other get_*_by_id tools (e.g., get_movie_by_id, get_tag_by_id). The tool name already implies the action, so the description adds little beyond a restatement.
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 versus alternatives such as list_collection or other getters. It does not mention any selection criteria, preconditions, or exclusions. The agent is left without any routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.