Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Overseerr MCP Server

Overseerr MCP Server

by jhomen368
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

manage_media_requests

Get, list, approve, decline, or delete media requests with filters for status and batching support.

Instructions

Manage requests: get/list/approve/decline/delete. Supports filters and batching. Filters: all|pending|approved|available|processing|unavailable|failed

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_media_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skipNo
sortNoadded
takeNo
actionYesAction
filterNoall
formatNocompact
summaryNoStats instead of list
requestIdNoRequest ID (single)
requestIdsNoRequest IDs (batch)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.1.3
  2. Removedv2.1.2
  3. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions batching and filters but does not disclose destructive nature of 'delete', side effects of 'approve'/'decline', or required permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise: two sentences delivering purpose and filter options. No filler, front-loaded information.

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?

With 9 parameters, multiple actions, batch support, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. Missing explanations for format, summary, batching mechanics, and action specifics.

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 coverage is 44% (only action, summary, requestId, requestIds have descriptions). Description adds filter enum values and batching hint but does not explain skip, take, sort, format, or their interactions. Partially compensates.

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?

Description clearly states the tool manages media requests with specific actions (get/list/approve/decline/delete). It distinguishes from siblings like 'request_media' (creation) and 'search_media' (searching) by focusing on request management.

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?

Description implies usage for request management but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs siblings like 'request_media' or 'get_media_details'. No exclusion or alternative mention.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools