Add a new TV series to Sonarr by submitting series details via API. Refer to the schema endpoint to see required fields for the request.
Create Series.
POST /api/v3/series
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 indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds little behavioral context beyond the HTTP method and path. It does not explain side effects, auth requirements, duplicate handling, or validation behavior, so it fails to enrich what the 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 brief and front-loads the action and endpoint, with no filler. The structured Args section is efficient, though it relies heavily on an external endpoint rather than providing direct parameter detail.
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 a single dynamic body parameter and an existing output schema, the pointer to the schema/GET endpoint is the critical missing piece and is present. Still, the description lacks details about required nested fields, idempotency implications, and how this tool differs from create_series_import, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden for the body parameter. It helpfully identifies body as the request payload and instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover expected fields, which is meaningful for an additionalProperties:true object. However, it does not enumerate any concrete fields or provide examples.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Create Series') plus the HTTP endpoint POST /api/v3/series, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from related siblings like create_series_import, but the primary purpose is unambiguous.
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 a prerequisite (read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first) but gives no guidance on when to use create_series versus related create or update tools. There are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.