Retrieve a specific delay profile by its ID to view its settings. Use this to inspect or troubleshoot delay profile configuration in Sonarr.
Read DelayProfile.
GET /api/v3/delayprofile/{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 already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool, and the description aligns with those. The description adds the HTTP GET method and URL template, but it does not provide further behavioral details such as error responses when the id does not exist.
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, with the core operation stated first and no redundant or promotional language. It is direct, although the Args section is slightly terse.
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?
The low complexity, one required parameter, output schema presence, and strong read-only annotations on the tool make the description mostly adequate. Still, the lack of clarity around the id semantics and any error/response behavior leaves a small but relevant gap for an agent operating without further context.
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 input schema has no parameter description, and the tool description only says 'id: Path parameter,' which adds little beyond the schema's required integer field. It does not explain that the id is the delay profile identifier, any value constraints, or how it maps to the path.
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 starts with 'Read DelayProfile,' making the specific operation and resource clear, and the GET /api/v3/delayprofile/{id} line confirms that it fetches a single profile by id. It does not explicitly name the analogous list_delayprofile or update/delete tools, but the by-id read intent is recognizable from the name and path.
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 guidance about when to fetch a single delay profile versus using a sibling such as list_delayprofile, create_delayprofile, or update_delayprofile_by_id. Any selection between these alternatives is left to the agent's inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.