Retrieve all configured root folders from Sonarr to view the directories where media libraries are stored.
Read RootFolder.
GET /api/v3/rootfolder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, and the description's 'Read' plus GET method are consistent with those. The description adds no extra context beyond what structured annotations already provide (e.g., no auth, pagination, or list-vs-single clarification), so the behavior is transparent but not enriched.
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 two short lines, front-loads the purpose, and contains no filler. It is appropriately minimal for a parameterless read operation.
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?
Because this is a safe, idempotent read with no parameters and an output schema already present, the description does not need to explain return values. The only minor gap is that 'Read RootFolder' gives no hint that this is a list-style endpoint, but the tool name list_rootfolder and the bare path provide that 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so parameter semantics are trivially complete. The description does not need to document parameter meaning because there are none.
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 specific action ('Read') and resource ('RootFolder') and reveals the exact endpoint, so an agent can generally tell it performs a GET on the root folder resource. It doesn't explicitly say this returns all root folders or differentiate from get_rootfolder_by_id, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description never says when to prefer this tool over sibling list/get/create/delete root-folder tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives. The GET path is the only minimal signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.