Rename a genre in Audiobookshelf by specifying the existing genre and a new name. Apply the change to all associated books.
Create or act on genres rename.
POST /api/genres/rename
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 cover idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it provides little extra behavioral context beyond 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first.' It does not explain what the rename operation does, any side effects, or why idempotency matters here.
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 concise but the opening sentence is unhelpful and tautological. The endpoint line is useful context, but the overall structure front-loads vagueness rather than the key purpose. It could be shorter and more informative, but the vague phrasing wastes space.
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 mutation tool with a nested-body parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It tells the agent to read the schema, but does not provide any context about what the rename does, what fields are expected, or how to construct a valid request. The annotations cover safety, but the behavioral purpose is still unclear.
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 input schema has only a single 'body' parameter with additionalProperties:true, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any fields or structure, only instructs to fetch the schema. This does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema and leaves the agent to discover details externally.
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 opens with 'Create or act on genres rename,' which is vague and does not clearly state the operation. The tool name implies renaming a genre, but 'create or act on' is ambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_tags_rename or delete_genres_by_genre.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when a rename is appropriate, what distinguishes it from create_tags_rename, or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.