Submit a command payload to Sonarr's API to execute actions like library rescans, downloads, and updates.
Create Command.
POST /api/v3/command
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 declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Create Command'. It doesn't disclose whether the command is executed asynchronously, whether it triggers side effects, or how to monitor its status. The schema-reading note concerns parameters, not behavior.
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: purpose, endpoint, then the single parameter note. Every line earns its place and there is no 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, the tool uses a generic body schema in a domain-specific API, and the description relies entirely on an external schema endpoint for payload structure. It is workable but minimal, lacking any explanation of what a command is or when this tool should be used.
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 schema is a generic additionalProperties object with 0% description coverage. The description adds some value by identifying 'body' as the request payload and instructing the agent to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint for expected fields. This is a useful pointer, but it doesn't provide actual field semantics.
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 the operation clearly: 'Create Command' with the endpoint 'POST /api/v3/command'. This is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate this from the many sibling create_* tools or explain what a Command is in this system.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't explain the purpose of commands, when to create one, or how this tool compares to alternatives. The note to read the GET or /schema endpoint is about parameter discovery, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.