Retrieve a specific localization entry by its ID from Sonarr's API to access translated strings or localization data. Use this to fetch exact localization details for a given identifier.
Read Localization.
GET /api/v3/localization/{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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint and parameter but doesn't disclose any additional behaviors like error handling or response structure. Given the annotations, a 3 is fair—it adds minimal context beyond what's already structured.
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 extremely concise with no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded. It efficiently states the verb, resource, and parameter, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.
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 get-by-ID tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is arguably minimal but sufficient to call the tool. However, it lacks any context about when to use it, potential errors, or the nature of the returned object. Given the tool's simplicity, a 2 reflects the bare minimum—it's not completely inadequate but leaves room for improvement.
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%, and the description only restates 'id: Path parameter,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag. It doesn't explain what the ID represents or how it's used, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('Localization'), and the tool name includes 'by_id' so it's evident this fetches a specific localization. It distinguishes from siblings like list_localization and list_localization_language, though it doesn't explicitly say 'by ID' in the description itself.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over list_localization or other localization endpoints, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely a route template.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.