Lists import list exclusions from Radarr to identify movies or titles you have excluded from automatic imports. Use this to review and manage your exclusion list.
Read ImportListExclusion.
GET /api/v3/exclusions
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered outside the description. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default result limits, or permissions, and effectively repeats the read-only nature already captured by annotations.
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, consisting of one short sentence and the endpoint. Every element earns its place, and the endpoint provides practical routing information without any filler.
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 parameterless read operation with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it does not clarify whether this returns all exclusions or how it differs from the paged variant, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between sibling tools.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics needed, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.
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 ('Read') and a resource ('ImportListExclusion'), and the included endpoint 'GET /api/v3/exclusions' confirms this is a list operation on the exclusions collection. It is clear what the tool does, though it could more explicitly distinguish this from the sibling list_exclusions_paged tool.
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_exclusions_paged or get_exclusions_by_id. The description merely restates the operation and endpoint, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.