Retrieve Radarr server quality profiles and root folders by providing the Radarr ID. Use this to inspect configuration for a specific Radarr instance.
Get Radarr server quality profiles and root folders.
GET /api/v1/service/radarr/{radarrId}
Args: radarr_id: Path parameter.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns both quality profiles and root folders, which is useful output context, but it does not mention error behavior, auth needs, or what happens for an unknown radarr_id.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and avoids prose. The URL and Args lines are slightly redundant with the schema and path but add the path-parameter detail without bloat.
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 one-parameter GET with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is close to sufficient. The notable gap is the confusing sibling get_settings_radarr_by_radarr_id_profiles, which also concerns Radarr profiles; the description does not clarify when each should be used, so an agent may select the wrong tool.
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 description needed to fully explain radarr_id, but it only says 'Path parameter,' which mostly restates the URL template. It does not say where the ID comes from, how to resolve it, or what valid values look like, leaving the schema title 'Radarr Id' to carry the meaning.
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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Radarr server'), and concrete returned data ('quality profiles and root folders'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling get_settings_radarr_by_radarr_id_profiles, which keeps it from a 5.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_settings_radarr_by_radarr_id_profiles, list_service_radarr, or other Radarr endpoints. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing Radarr server ID, or exclusions. The only usage signal is the purpose statement itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.