Fetch a specific Radarr root folder's details by its ID to inspect or manage movie storage locations.
Read RootFolder.
GET /api/v3/rootfolder/{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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no new safety context. It only restates 'Read' and gives the HTTP endpoint, which does not disclose return format, pagination, or any edge-case behavior. The description carries no additional behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide.
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 concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details and feels like a placeholder. While it is short, it does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name and endpoint.
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 get-by-id tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a RootFolder is, what the response contains, or any error handling. Given the large set of sibling tools, the lack of guidance on when to use this specific getter makes it hard for an agent to choose 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?
The description only says 'id: Path parameter', which is already implicit from the schema and the URL pattern. It does not explain what the id represents (e.g., the root folder's unique identifier) or any constraints. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the missing semantic meaning of the parameter.
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 clearly states 'Read RootFolder' with a specific verb and resource, which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many other get_*_by_id sibling tools, though the resource name is specific enough to infer the distinction.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other get_*_by_id tools like get_movie_by_id or get_collection_by_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.