Creates an API authorization token to authenticate requests and access protected Audiobookshelf resources.
Create or act on api authorize.
POST /api/authorize
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 convey non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds no effect or side-effect context. 'Create or act' gives no detail about what the call changes, authorization side effects, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and line-structured, but 'Create or act on api authorize' is weak filler that doesn't earn its place. It is not bloated, yet front-loading is undermined by a vague statement.
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 an opaque authorization endpoint with an arbitrary body, the description gives only a discovery pointer and no semantic content. It doesn't explain the purpose of the authorize resource or expected interactions, so an agent would still have to guess or fetch schema.
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 sole body parameter is an open additionalProperties object with zero schema descriptions; the description says 'Request payload' and points to GET/schema for field discovery. This is some compensation, though it still leaves actual field semantics undisclosed.
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?
Description says 'Create or act on api authorize' plus the endpoint, which mostly restates the tool's name and gives no concrete operation. It doesn't clarify what authorizing does or how it differs from siblings like patch_auth_settings or create_session_local.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites. The only instruction is to read GET/schema, which is about payload discovery, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.