Retrieve reviews for a specific Plex media item by its ID. Use this to fetch user ratings and critiques for movies, shows, or episodes directly from your Plex library.
Get Metadata Reviews.
GET /library/metadata/{id}/reviews
Args: id: The unique identifier of the item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the GET route—no mention of response shape, pagination, authentication, or special conditions. Since it contributes nothing beyond what annotations already state, the transparency is weak.
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 exceptionally compact: purpose, route, and one argument description, with no filler or redundant sentences. The most essential information is front-loaded, and each line serves a distinct function. This is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read-only tool.
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 read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is just enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, the term 'reviews' is undefined and there is no guidance on when this endpoint is appropriate compared to the many sibling tools. An agent selecting among ~200 similar endpoints would be under-informed about the semantic meaning and applicability of 'metadata reviews'.
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 input schema only labels the property as 'Id' with no description, so the description's 'id: The unique identifier of the item' adds essential meaning that the schema lacks. However, it is generic and does not specify what kind of item (e.g., a library metadata item ID) or where the ID comes from. It partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage but remains minimal.
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 opens with 'Get Metadata Reviews', a clear verb-plus-resource phrase indicating retrieval of review data for a metadata item. The route reinforces the target resource and the operation. It is less detailed than an ideal definition but not tautological and is distinguishable from most siblings by the 'reviews' resource.
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 given on when to use this tool versus the many similar get_library_metadata_by_id_* siblings (children, parent, similar, etc.). The description only restates the operation and does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and route.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.