Create a shared Plex server to grant other users access to your media library. This action sets up server sharing for collaboration.
Share Server.
POST /shared_servers
| 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?
Annotations already indicate that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive action parallax. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, required permissions, or what resources are affected. It merely restates the action and endpoint, providing no value beyond 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 extremely short, but the first sentence 'Share Server' is tautological and doesn't earn its place. The HTTP path is useful, yet overall the description suffers from under-specification rather than concise efficiency. For a tool this simple, it is acceptable but not well-structured.
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 empty input schema and generic annotations, the description is the sole source of operational meaning, but 'Share Server' is too ambiguous to be actionable. The tool's endpoint and purpose are unclear, and no contextual details about the sharing operation are provided. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing functional clarity.
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, so the schema is fully covered and there is nothing to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately avoids describing parameters that don't exist.
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 'Share Server' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'create_shared_servers' and adds no new semantic detail about what sharing a server entails. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'create_servers_by_machine_id_shared_servers', which appears to serve a nearly identical purpose. The HTTP path and method provide routing info but not operational clarity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, use cases, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. An agent would have no basis to choose this over create_servers_by_machine_id_shared_servers based on the text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.