Fetch detailed episode information by its unique ID from Sonarr. Use to retrieve episode status, file, and metadata directly.
Read Episode.
GET /api/v3/episode/{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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and path, which is minor context but not a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.
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 very short and front-loaded with the core action 'Read Episode.' The endpoint and argument lines are redundant with the schema but do not add much noise. It is concise, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
For a simple read-by-id tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any context about what the returned episode object contains, how it relates to list_episode, or any special cases, so it is only minimally complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter, 'id', and the description explicitly states 'Args: id: Path parameter.' This adds the path-parameter role, which is useful, though the schema already defines the parameter name and type.
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 says 'Read Episode' and includes the HTTP endpoint, which clearly identifies the resource and action. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_episodefile_by_id or list_episode, and the name already conveys most of the meaning.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the endpoint and parameter, leaving the agent to infer that this is the single-episode lookup counterpart to list_episode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.