Exports a full Plex library to a JSON file in ./exports for backup or media metadata analysis.
Export a full library to a JSON file (within ./exports)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Media type (movie, show, season, episode, artist, album, track) | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page for export (default: 500) | |
| libraryKey | Yes | Library section key | |
| outputPath | No | Optional relative path under ./exports (default: library_{key}_{timestamp}.json) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Input schema / properties / type / descriptionPrevious value: -"Media type (movie, show, episode, artist, album, track)"New value: +"Media type (movie, show, season, episode, artist, album, track)"Input schema / properties / type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "movie",
- "show",
- "episode",
- "artist",
- "album",
- "track"
-]New value: +[
+ "movie",
+ "show",
+ "season",
+ "episode",
+ "artist",
+ "album",
+ "track"
+]v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, is open-world, and is non-destructive. The description adds the useful constraint that output is written within ./exports, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, file creation side effects, or permission requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, resource, and output format immediately.
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?
The schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is minimally adequate. However, for a file-writing export tool it omits relevant behavioral details such as overwrite handling and what the tool returns.
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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the output location constraint but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: export a full library to a JSON file. It clearly distinguishes itself from read-only sibling tools like get_library_items by emphasizing file export, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_library_items or search_media. The export intent is implied, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.