Exchange a JWT token to generate a Plex authentication token, enabling access to Plex media server and cloud services.
Exchange JWT Token.
POST /auth/token
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 declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate mutation or idempotency. It adds the POST method and points to /schema/GET for field discovery, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, or what the resulting token is used for. This is minimally adequate given the annotations.
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 tight and front-loaded: the action and endpoint come first, followed by a short argument note. There is no fluff, though the phrase 'Exchange JWT Token' could be more precise.
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 one-parameter endpoint with an output schema and annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits when to use this tool over token-related siblings and leaves the exchange semantics ambiguous. The /schema pointer helps with parameters but does not compensate for missing use-case context.
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 provides only a free-form body object with additionalProperties=true and no field documentation, so the description carries most of the burden. It names body as the request payload and directs the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected fields, but it does not define actual field names, types, or formats.
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 specific endpoint and action ('Exchange JWT Token', POST /auth/token), so an agent can tell it deals with token creation/exchange. However, it does not clarify what is exchanged for what, and it does not differentiate it from siblings like create_security_token or create_auth_jwk.
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 alternatives such as create_security_token or create_users_signin. The only instruction is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which is about payload discovery rather than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.