Skip to main content
Glama

create_play_queues

Idempotent

Create a Plex play queue to start playback, with controls for shuffle, repeat, and starting from a specific item.

Instructions

Create a play queue.

POST /playQueues

Args: uri: The content URI for what we're playing. playlist_id: the ID of the playlist we're playing. type: The type of play queue to create key: The key of the first item to play, defaults to the first in the play queue. shuffle: Whether to shuffle the playlist, defaults to 0. repeat: If the PQ is bigger than the window, fill any empty space with wraparound items, defaults to 0. continuous: Whether to create a continuous play queue (e.g. from an episode), defaults to 0. extras_prefix_count: Number of trailers to prepend a movie with not including the pre-roll. If omitted the pre-roll will not be returned in the play queue. When resuming a movie extrasPrefixCount should be omitted as a parameter instead of passing 0. recursive: Only applies to queues of type photo, whether to retrieve all descendent photos from an album or section, defaults to 1. on_deck: Only applies to queues of type show or seasons, whether to return a queue that is started on the On Deck episode if one exists. Otherwise begins the play queue on the beginning of the show or season.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNo
uriNo
typeNo
repeatNo
on_deckNo
shuffleNo
recursiveNo
continuousNo
playlist_idNo
extras_prefix_countNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description reveals several non-obvious behaviors beyond the basic write operation: defaults for shuffle, repeat, continuous, and recursive; the special meaning of repeat (wraparound items); the extras_prefix_count nuances (pre-roll omission and the warning to omit the parameter when resuming a movie rather than passing 0); and the type-specific on_deck behavior. These details far exceed what the annotations alone convey (idempotent, non-destructive, write operation). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a one-line summary of the action, followed by a compact bulleted list of arguments. Each parameter explanation is concise, informative, and avoids redundant detail. The special-case warnings for extras_prefix_count and type-specific parameters are important and presented without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 10 optional parameters and several type-dependent behaviors, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters with defaults and edge cases, includes a warning about a common pitfall (omitting extrasPrefixCount on resume), and notes which parameters apply only to certain queue types. An output schema exists to describe return values, so the description does not need to cover that. No critical information appears missing for an agent to construct a correct request.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides only parameter names and types with no descriptions (0% schema description coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, default value, and type-specific behavior (e.g., recursive only for photo queues, on_deck only for show/season queues). It even clarifies subtle cases like the extras_prefix_count parameter when resuming a movie. This is exactly the kind of added meaning the schema alone lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a play queue.' It also specifies the exact endpoint (POST /playQueues). While it doesn't explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like update_play_queues or get_play_queues, the create verb and endpoint make the purpose unambiguous and distinct from the other play-queue operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'Create' clearly implies this tool is for creating new play queues rather than updating or deleting existing ones. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., when you have an existing queue ID vs. starting fresh), nor does it mention any preconditions like needing a valid URI or playlist ID. The usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools