List available movie and series libraries from Jellyfin to integrate with Bazarr subtitle management.
List available movie and series libraries from the Jellyfin server.
GET /api/jellyfin/libraries
Args: url: Jellyfin server URL apikey: Jellyfin API key
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| apikey | No |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the GET endpoint is consistent with those hints. The description adds no detail about auth failures, availability semantics, or response behavior, but for a simple read-only list the annotation coverage is sufficient.
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?
Three compact lines: a purpose sentence, the endpoint, and one-line argument definitions. It is front-loaded and every element earns its place with no waste.
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?
The tool is simple, has annotations, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It provides the endpoint and parameter meanings, which is sufficient; a brief note about when to use it relative to Jellyfin siblings would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining url as 'Jellyfin server URL' and apikey as 'Jellyfin API key', giving agents the minimal meaning needed to fill both parameters.
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?
States 'List available movie and series libraries from the Jellyfin server' – a specific verb, resource, and server. The explicit GET endpoint further clarifies the operation. This distinguishes it from the many create_/list_ siblings targeting other systems.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. However, the name and endpoint make the core use case self-evident, so usage is implied rather than entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.