Retrieve the current naming configuration for Radarr movies. Use it to check or verify how movie files and folders are named.
Read NamingConfig.
GET /api/v3/config/naming
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the HTTP method and path, which is informative but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as the response structure or pagination. Given the output schema exists, the description adds minimal extra context, so 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 extremely concise, two short lines, with the purpose front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse. It could be argued it's under-specified, but for a simple read it's appropriately sized.
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?
The tool is simple with no params and an output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus get_config_naming_by_id, and it doesn't explicitly state it returns the full configuration. This gap reduces completeness slightly, so a 3 is given.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and nothing detracts from that.
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 NamingConfig' which is a specific verb and resource, and the HTTP endpoint further clarifies it. It is distinguishable from sibling get_config_naming_by_id by the list vs single resource implication, though not explicitly stated. Clear but could be more explicit about listing all configurations.
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 like get_config_naming_by_id or update_config_naming_by_id. The description simply gives the endpoint without contextual direction, so an agent has to infer when this is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.