Add a new podcast to your Audiobookshelf library by submitting the required podcast details through the API.
Create a new podcast.
POST /api/podcasts
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 cover the basic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description does not contradict them. It adds that this is a POST endpoint and that body fields should be discovered via GET or /schema, but it does not describe side effects, authentication, or response behavior. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.
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 compact and front-loaded: action, endpoint, then parameter guidance. Each sentence earns its place, and the /schema pointer is a practical addition without unnecessary elaboration.
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 simple create tool with one generic body parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it provides the endpoint, the parameter, and a discovery mechanism for body fields. It does not mention auth or alternatives, but those are less critical given the annotations and the explicit schema-discovery instruction.
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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter is an opaque body object with additionalProperties: true. The description adds meaningful value by labeling body as the request payload and instructing the agent to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint for expected fields, which compensates for the empty schema.
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 opening sentence 'Create a new podcast.' clearly states the action and resource. It is distinguishable from generic create_* tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from related podcast siblings such as create_podcasts_feed or create_podcasts_opml_create.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only directional advice is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint for body fields, which is about parameter discovery, not tool selection. Usage is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.