Apply bulk updates to multiple series in Sonarr using the editor endpoint. Modify settings for selected shows in one request.
Update SeriesEditor.
PUT /api/v3/series/editor
Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | 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 the operation is mutating, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds only the HTTP verb and the existence of a body payload; it does not disclose whether this is a bulk operation, whether unspecified fields are reset, or what side effects occur. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.
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 well-ordered: action, endpoint, then argument guidance. Every line earns its place, and there is no filler. A brief clarification of what SeriesEditor represents would improve it but would not require additional length.
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 tool with a nested, undocumented body and many similar siblings, the description is thin. It tells the agent to discover fields from GET/schema, which aids invocation, but it does not explain the resource semantics, when to use this tool, or how it differs from related update endpoints. The output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, but selection and body construction guidance are incomplete.
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 schema provides no description for the body parameter, so coverage is 0%. The description compensates partially by identifying body as the request payload and directing the agent to GET or /schema for expected fields, but it does not describe the body structure, required fields, or accepted shapes.
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 verb and resource ('Update SeriesEditor') and gives the endpoint, so the core action is identifiable. However, 'SeriesEditor' is not defined or explained, and the description does not clarify that this is likely a bulk update operation for series rather than an editor entity. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling update tools beyond the name.
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?
The only usage guidance is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before sending a body. There is no statement about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like update_series_by_id or delete_series_editor, and no exclusions or conditional logic are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.