Delete a specific blocklist entry from Sonarr by its unique ID. This removes unwanted releases from the blocklist, enabling re-processing or cleanup.
Delete Blocklist.
DELETE /api/v3/blocklist/{id}
Args: id: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are helpful but already available. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the raw endpoint, such as effects of deleting, any cascading deletions, or error responses. It does not contradict annotations, but it fails to enrich the agent's understanding of the operation's consequences.
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 efficiently concise, with a short summary and the endpoint. However, it repeats the endpoint verbatim and includes 'Args:' section, which is slightly redundant with the schema. Still, every line has a purpose and it is front-loaded.
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 tool's simplicity (one param, no nested objects), the description is minimal but lacks context about the blocklist entity's purpose and the effect of deletion. Output schema exists but the description doesn't mention it. An agent would struggle to know when to use this over bulk deletion or how to interpret the response.
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 must compensate, but it only states 'id: Path parameter.' without explaining its meaning (e.g., the blocklist entry ID). The description provides minimal added value over the schema's type and title.
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 'Delete Blocklist' clearly states the verb and resource, and the endpoint URL makes the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_blocklist_bulk by the singular 'by_id' in the name, though the description itself could be more explicit about deleting a single blocklist entry by its ID.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_blocklist_bulk or list_blocklist. It only states the operation and the endpoint, with no context for prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.