Update API settings for Audiobookshelf by sending a request payload. Check the GET or schema endpoint to see the expected fields.
Update api settings.
PATCH /api/settings
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?
The annotations already cover idempotence, non-read-only behavior, and non-destructiveness. The description adds the useful context that the expected fields are dynamic and must be discovered via GET or /schema, but it does not disclose update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement) or any authentication 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?
The description is very concise, front-loads the purpose, and then provides the endpoint and parameter guidance in a clean structure. There is no redundant or filler content.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and the open body design, the description is largely complete: it names the endpoint and tells the agent how to discover valid fields. It could be improved by clarifying what 'api settings' encompasses and whether the update is partial or full, but those are not blocking gaps.
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 body parameter is an open object with no static field definitions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that 'body' is the request payload and directing the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected fields, which is essential guidance for this open parameter.
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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('api settings'), and reinforces it with the explicit endpoint 'PATCH /api/settings'. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like patch_auth_settings or patch_emails_settings.
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 a concrete prerequisite: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before constructing the body. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over related patch_* tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.