Verify Jellyfin server connectivity by testing provided URL and API key to confirm credentials are valid and reachable.
Test connection to a Jellyfin server with provided credentials.
POST /api/jellyfin/test-connection
Args: url: Jellyfin server URL apikey: Jellyfin API key
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| apikey | 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 idempotency (true) and non-destructiveness, while the description adds the HTTP method (POST) and the fact that credentials are used for authentication. It does not explain whether the test is strictly read-only or what side effects, if any, occur on the Jellyfin server, which would be useful given readOnlyHint=false.
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: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and two param explanations. It front-loads the purpose and contains no fluff.
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 two-parameter test connection tool, the description plus existing output schema and annotations cover the essential invocation details. The only notable omissions are explicit sibling routing and behavior-on-failure or side-effect clarification, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section carries the full burden and does so adequately: url is identified as the Jellyfin server URL and apikey as the Jellyfin API key. The meanings are sufficient for two simple string parameters, though no format or examples are provided.
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 a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('connection to a Jellyfin server'), and includes the exact HTTP endpoint. The 'Jellyfin' scope distinguishes it from the sibling create_plex_test_connection, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.
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 context is clear: use this to verify a Jellyfin connection with credentials. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over create_plex_test_connection or other siblings, and it omits any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.