Create a release profile to set preferred or prohibited terms, controlling which releases Sonarr grabs for your media library.
Create ReleaseProfile.
POST /api/v3/releaseprofile
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 already declare idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the guidance to consult the schema for expected fields, which is a useful behavioral hint. It does not contradict annotations and doesn't add further side-effects or auth details, but given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 highly concise: a clear purpose statement, the endpoint, and a single parameter with a helpful hint. There is no redundancy, and every line carries meaningful information, making it an exemplary compact definition.
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 existence of an output schema and the pointer to GET/schema for field details, the description is reasonably complete for a simple create operation. However, it lacks any mention of response handling, required fields upfront, or potential edge cases, so it is not fully complete on its own.
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 description explains that 'body' is the request payload and directs the agent to the schema for field definitions. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this pointer is valuable, but it does not list any specific fields or structure, so it only partially compensates for the absent schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'ReleaseProfile', and also provides the HTTP endpoint. It is distinguishable from siblings by the resource name, but it does not explicitly contrast with other create tools, so it lacks active differentiation.
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 advises reading the matching GET or /schema endpoint before constructing the body, which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like update_releaseprofile_by_id, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites beyond that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.