Retrieve a specific missing episode or movie from Sonarr by its ID to check its status and details.
Read Missing.
GET /api/v3/wanted/missing/{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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the HTTP path and path parameter, which is interface information rather than behavioral context such as error cases, authentication, or response semantics.
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 structured with endpoint and args, which is easy to parse. However, 'Read Missing.' is vague and adds little value, so brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient clarity.
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?
With an output schema and strong read-only annotations, the basic invocation surface is covered, but the tool lacks domain context about what a 'missing' record is and how this endpoint relates to sibling wanted/cutoff endpoints. An agent cannot confidently select or interpret this tool from the description alone.
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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the 'id' parameter. It only says 'id: Path parameter,' which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and schema type; it does not say what entity the id refers to.
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 Missing.' which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what 'Missing' refers to in this domain. It does not distinguish the resource from closely related siblings like get_wanted_cutoff_by_id or list_wanted_missing.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_wanted_missing or get_wanted_cutoff_by_id. The description only gives the HTTP endpoint and argument, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.