Retrieve a specific quality definition from Sonarr by its ID to inspect resolution, size limits, and other configuration settings.
Read QualityDefinition.
GET /api/v3/qualitydefinition/{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 clear. The description adds only the HTTP GET path and path-parameter detail, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral context such as error behavior or response characteristics. No contradiction exists.
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: one sentence states the purpose, followed by the endpoint and an args list. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 single-ID read operation, the description covers the essential endpoint and parameter details. The annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, so the absence of deeper behavioral explanation is acceptable. It could mention the relationship to list_qualitydefinition, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.
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 only lists id as an integer with no description, so the description's clarification that it is a 'Path parameter' adds meaningful binding information. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it does not explain what the identifier refers to beyond the tool name.
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 and resource: 'Read QualityDefinition.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from the many sibling tools like get_qualityprofile_by_id or list_qualitydefinition. It could be stronger by explaining what a QualityDefinition is, but the core 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_qualitydefinition or update_qualitydefinition_by_id. The phrase 'Read QualityDefinition' implies the general use case, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or when a different tool should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.