Bulk update movie files in Radarr by applying changes to multiple files at once. Modify file properties or metadata efficiently.
Update MovieFile.
PUT /api/v3/moviefile/bulk
Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | 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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. The description adds the instruction to read the GET or /schema endpoint first, which hints at the need to discover the request body shape, but it does not disclose behavior like partial updates, validation, or response details beyond what annotations already convey.
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 short and front-loaded with the endpoint, and the instruction to consult the schema is concise. It earns its place, though it could be more informative about the bulk nature of the operation.
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?
Given the tool has a single open-ended body parameter, no parameter documentation, and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what a bulk update entails, how to structure the body, or how this differs from single-update siblings. The pointer to GET/schema is helpful but insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional discovery.
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%, and the only parameter 'body' is an open object with additionalProperties: true. The description says to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to see expected fields, which is a pointer rather than actual semantic meaning. It does not explain what fields the body should contain or how the bulk update behaves.
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 says 'Update MovieFile' and gives the PUT endpoint, which identifies the resource and action. However, it does not clarify that this is the bulk variant (updating multiple movie files at once) or distinguish it from update_moviefile_by_id and update_moviefile_editor, which are sibling tools with similar names.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_moviefile_by_id or update_moviefile_editor. It only instructs to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which is generic and does not explain the bulk operation's use case or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.