Delete a Radarr instance from the server settings by providing its radarrId. This action removes the integration, keeping your media services list accurate.
Delete Radarr instance.
DELETE /api/v1/settings/radarr/{radarrId}
Args: radarr_id: Radarr instance ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| radarr_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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating that it is a delete operation — it does not mention irreversibility, associated data impacted, or authentication/authorization requirements.
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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the action before adding the endpoint and parameter. The REST path is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.
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 single-parameter delete operation, the description is minimally adequate: the annotations cover the destructive and idempotent behavior, and there is an output schema present. However, it lacks the surrounding operational context an agent needs — when deletion is appropriate, how to validate the ID, or what side effects may occur.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the 'Args: radarr_id: Radarr instance ID' line carries the full explanatory burden. It clarifies that the integer is the identifier of a configured Radarr instance, but it does not explain how to obtain it (e.g., from list_settings_radarr) or relate it to the {radarrId} path 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 opens with 'Delete Radarr instance.' — a specific verb and resource that immediately distinguishes this from delete_settings_sonarr_by_sonarr_id and other delete_* siblings. The REST path reinforces exactly what is being removed.
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 this tool should be used, what conditions must be met before deleting, or what alternatives exist. It does not mention that list_settings_radarr can be used to discover available IDs or that update_settings_radarr_by_radarr_id is the non-destructive alternative for modifying an instance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.