Set server-wide Bazarr system settings via API to define subtitle management behavior. Use this operation to update configuration values that control the server.
POST system/settings.
POST /api/system/settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 description adds no behavioral detail beyond the HTTP verb. Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description itself contributes nothing beyond what structured metadata already provides.
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 contains redundant duplication: 'POST system/settings' is immediately repeated as 'POST /api/system/settings'. This is waste rather than useful conciseness, though it is short and front-loaded.
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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the minimal endpoint information is partially sufficient. However, it never explains what creating system settings actually does, what settings are affected, or what side effects an agent should expect beyond the annotations.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and there is no missing parameter information.
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 clearly identifies the operation as POST to system/settings, pairing a specific verb with a specific resource. It does not, however, explain what 'system settings' means or how this differs from sibling endpoints like create_system_account or create_system_jobs, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It only states the endpoint, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and the path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.