Plex MCP server

by rollecode

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

create_playlists_upload

Idempotent

Upload m3u playlist files or scan a directory to create Plex playlists. Control overwriting with the force option.

Instructions

Upload media art.

POST /playlists/upload

Args: path: Absolute path to a directory on the server where m3u files are stored, or the absolute path to a playlist file on the server. If the path argument is a directory, that path will be scanned for playlist files to be processed. Each file in that directory creates a separate playlist, with a name based on the filename of the file that created it. The GUID of each playlist is based on the filename. If the path argument is a file, that file will be used to create a new playlist, with the name based on the filename of the file that created it. The GUID of each playlist is based on the filename. force: Force overwriting of duplicate playlists. By default, a playlist file uploaded with the same path will overwrite the existing playlist. The force argument is used to disable overwriting. If the force argument is set to 0, a new playlist will be created suffixed with the date and time that the duplicate was uploaded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`force`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=falsements. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond these: it explains that a directory path is scanned for m3u files and each creates a separate playlist named from the filename, the GUID is derived from the filename, default behavior overwrites existing playlists, and setting `force` to 0 disables overwriting and suffixes duplicate playlists with date/time. This provides clear side-effect transparency without contradicting 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is moderately concise but contains redundancy: the sentence about naming and GUID is repeated verbatim for both the directory and file cases. The opening phrase 'Upload media art' is a poor summary, and the structure could be improved with a clear summary and condensed parameter descriptions. However, the Args section is logically organized and not excessively long.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description adequately covers the core behavior: both input modes for `path`, naming conventions, GUID derivation, and overwrite behavior via `force`. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. It does not mention error conditions, prerequisites, or interactions with other tools, but for this complexity level the main scenarios are well-specified.

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 (string/null) with no descriptions – schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining that `path` can be an absolute directory or file, detailing the behavior for each case, and thoroughly describing `force`'s effect on duplicate handling. This is essential information without which the agent could not correctly use the parameters.

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 'Upload media art,'' which is vague and potentially misleading, but the next line 'POST /playlists/upload' and the detailed Args section make clear this tool uploads playlist (m3u) files from a directory or file to create playlists. It identifies a specific verb (upload) and resource (playlists), and the behavior is fully described. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'create_playlists,' but the name and endpoint are reasonably distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides usage details for the `path` parameter (directory vs. file) and the `force` parameter, but these are parameter semantics, not guidance on tool selection. There is no mention of alternative tools like `create_playlists` or any condition like 'Use this when you have m3u files to upload.' The only implied usage is from the description of what the tool does, which is not explicit.

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

Deploy Server