Retrieve detailed information about a specific movie file in Radarr by providing its unique ID. Use this to inspect file properties, quality, or path for a given movie file.
Read MovieFile.
GET /api/v3/moviefile/{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, and 'Read' is consistent with those. The description adds only the GET path and parameter location, which is minimal but not contradictory.
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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read MovieFile.' The endpoint and Args lines are sparse and add little beyond the schema, but there is no wasted prose or unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter GET with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any guidance about when to select this tool over the many sibling list/get/update/delete moviefile endpoints, so an agent gets no routing help.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'id: Path parameter,' which mostly repeats the endpoint and schema. It does not explain that id is the MovieFile record ID, any constraints, or how it relates to the output.
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 MovieFile' with a clear verb and resource, and the GET path confirms it retrieves a single MovieFile by ID. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_moviefile or get_movie_by_id, but the resource and by-id scope are evident.
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_moviefile, get_by_path, or get_movie_by_id. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.