rtorrent-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v3.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
The tools have distinct names but their scopes heavily overlap. torrent_management, workflow_management, and agentic_rtorrent_workflow all appear to handle multi-step torrent operations, making it unclear which tool should be selected for a given task. search_management and nlp_management also blur boundaries since NLP is used for search commands.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tool names follow a consistent underscore-separated pattern with a common suffix (management or workflow). While the suffixes vary between 'management' and 'workflow', the naming is predictable and uniform in style, with minor deviations in the agentic_rtorrent_workflow name.
Tool Count4/5
The server has 7 tools, which is within a reasonable range. However, each tool is a portmanteau consolidating many operations, so the effective surface area is much larger. The count is appropriate given the deliberate design to avoid tool explosion, though it might feel slightly low for the broad scope covered.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover major domains: torrent management, search, NLP, legal compliance, system operations, and workflows. The 'comprehensive' descriptions suggest a full range of operations, but the lack of specific operation lists makes it hard to verify. There are no obvious dead ends, but the vagueness could hide gaps.
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 30 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., delete actions remove files), permission requirements, or operational characteristics. The rationale about 'tool explosion' is irrelevant to behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes a meta-rationale paragraph that is not directly actionable. The first sentence delivers the purpose, but the rationale consumes space that could have been used to list operations or usage hints. It is not optimally front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 13 action types, output schema), the description is too sparse. It lacks an overview of action categories, usage context, or relationship to sibling tools. The schema provides detail, but the description fails to synthesize the tool's overall role, making it incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions and an action enum that specifies requirements for each operation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'Comprehensive torrent management portmanteau tool for rTorrent and post-processing,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_management or nlp_management. However, it does not list the specific operations, relying on the schema to enumerate them, which keeps the purpose somewhat high-level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'PORTMANTEAU PATTERN RATIONALE' explains why the tool exists but does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like agentic_rtorrent_workflow. An agent receives no contextual cues for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'sampling with tools' but does not describe execution semantics, safety profile, side effects, costs, or the iterative loop controlled by max_iterations. This is a significant gap for an orchestration tool that may invoke multiple underlying tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'PORTMANTEAU PATTERN RATIONALE' header is somewhat jargon-heavy, but it justifies the design choice in a single sentence. Every sentence adds some value, and it is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool is complex, orchestrating multi-step LLM-driven automation with potential for expensive or iterative operations. The description gives a high-level purpose but omits operational details like iteration limits, error behavior, or warnings about tool invocation. While an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of the 3 parameters (workflow_prompt, available_tools, max_iterations) with clear explanations. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific insight beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'Multi-step torrent/search automation via sampling with tools' and explains it serves as a single entry point for LLM-orchestrated flows (search, add, legal check). This distinguishes it from sibling management tools, which handle single operations. The phrase 'via sampling' is slightly ambiguous but the overall purpose is specific and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for multi-step flows via 'One entry point for LLM-orchestrated flows... without hard-coding sequences in the client.' This contrasts with hard-coding sequences and suggests using this tool when orchestration is needed, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name sibling tools as alternatives for single steps. It provides context but lacks clear exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only discusses the design rationale (portmanteau pattern) and does not reveal what the operations actually do, whether they are read-only, require authentication, or have side effects. Behavioral details are relegated to the schema's action descriptions, leaving the description itself uninformative about tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with a clear summary sentence, followed by a rationale for the portmanteau pattern. The rationale adds context but is somewhat verbose for a tool description, preventing a perfect score. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, with no major fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The input schema is detailed and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description lacks explicit usage scenarios and behavioral summaries, making it only minimally complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke the tool. The schema compensates for parameter and action details, but the description itself leaves gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (action, level, topic) having detailed descriptions, defaults, and valid values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as a comprehensive system management interface that consolidates operations, clearly distinguishing it from domain-specific sibling tools (torrent, search, nlp, legal, workflow). However, it does not enumerate the specific actions, leaving the actual verbs (help, status, health, info, analyze) to the schema. This is clear in scope and domain but not fully explicit about exact operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the tool consolidates multiple system operations into one interface, implying it should be used for system management tasks instead of separate tools. However, it provides no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that workflows are long-running and 'tricky', but doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, dry_run behavior, or whether actions are asynchronous. This is insufficient for a tool with many mutation-like actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two short paragraphs and front-loads the primary purpose. The 'PORTMANTEAU PATTERN RATIONALE' adds context but could be integrated more smoothly; still, no words are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, 8 actions) and presence of an output schema, the description provides only high-level context about long-running workflows. It doesn't explain how actions interrelate or when to use dry_run/rate_limit, relying heavily on the schema for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, including action-specific requirements and defaults, so the description doesn't need to add parameter detail. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's existing thorough documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is for managing complex, multi-step torrent workflows, with a concrete example of downloading entire anime franchises. While it distinguishes itself from simple torrent operations, it doesn't enumerate the specific actions covered, making it somewhat broad.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for long-running, 'tricky' workflows that could take days, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools like torrent_management or agentic_rtorrent_workflow. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is responsible for disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals auto-detection and language support but omits what 'execute' actually does (e.g., side effects like triggering downloads), error responses, or prerequisites. This is a significant transparency gap for an execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is organized with headings but is overly verbose, including a 'portmanteau pattern rationale' that discusses design philosophy rather than operational guidance. While front-loaded with the overview, several sentences could be trimmed without losing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity, the description plus detailed schema covers most operational aspects. However, it lacks clarity on execution side effects and what outputs to expect (though output schema exists). The lack of behavioral transparency makes it incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing command pattern templates and examples that demonstrate how to combine text, action, and language, plus the auto-detection behavior, going beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as an NLP management interface for anime commands, distinguishing it from sibling management tools by domain. While the term 'portmanteau' is jargon, the rest clarifies the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The portmanteau rationale explicitly states that this tool consolidates what would otherwise be 3+ separate tools, guiding the agent to use this single interface for NLP operations. The command patterns and language support imply when to use it, though it doesn't name specific alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or possible side effects. The description only covers scope and rationale, leaving the agent without critical safety and behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (PORTMANTEAU PATTERN RATIONALE, SEARCH SOURCES) and front-loads the purpose. While the portmanteau rationale is somewhat verbose, it is relevant to understanding the tool's design. No wasted sentences, but could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 actions, 19 parameters), the description provides a useful overview and source list, while detailed per-action requirements are supplied in the schema's action enum. The description, together with the rich schema, gives the agent enough context to select the tool and action, though it does not explicitly summarize the action list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 89%, so the schema already documents parameter meanings, requirements, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema's rich detail justifies the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool is a 'Comprehensive search management portmanteau tool for torrents and metadata' and explains it consolidates 11+ search operations into one interface. This clearly identifies the verb (search), the resource (torrents and metadata), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by its search focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by branding it as the single search tool ('Prevents tool explosion (11 tools → 1 tool)') and listing search sources, but does not explicitly specify when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. There are no named alternative tools with explicit exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains legal context and risk categories but does not describe the tool's runtime behavior (e.g., side effects, limits of advice, how results are returned). The schema covers per-action semantics, but the description adds only domain background.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with clear sections and a front-loaded main purpose. It is somewhat lengthy, but every section earns its place by providing necessary legal context; the structure aids scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description offers deep legal context and risk-level definitions, making it suitable for a complex legal tool. It doesn't explain return values, but an output schema is present, so that is covered. It's thorough but could be slightly more explicit about tool limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's legal context and risk levels add meaning beyond the schema by helping interpret how parameters like content_type and country affect risk assessment, thus enriching parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is for 'Austrian copyright compliance' and describes it as a 'portmanteau' consolidating legal operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name and general focus; the distinction is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides extensive legal context and risk levels, implying when to use the tool (e.g., personal downloads in Austria). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the 'when vs alternatives' guidance to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rtorrent-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/rtorrent-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/rtorrent-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rtorrent-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/rtorrent-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sandraschi/rtorrent-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sandraschi/rtorrent-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server