Retrieve leaf items (episodes or tracks) for given Plex media IDs. Use it to list all children of a show, season, or album.
Get the leaves of an item.
GET /library/metadata/{ids}/allLeaves
Args: ids: Comma-separated list of IDs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | 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 covered. The description adds the HTTP endpoint but no additional behavioral traits like pagination, limits, or what 'leaves' encompasses. It does not contradict 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 concise: a one-line purpose, the exact API path, and the parameter format. There is no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. The endpoint line is arguably redundant but does not detract from clarity.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimal but lacks contextual disambiguation. It does not clarify what 'leaves' means relative to sibling tools (e.g., children vs. leaves), nor does it mention any limits or special cases. An agent might struggle to decide whether this returns the same as get_library_metadata_by_ids_children or how it differs from get_library_metadata_by_ids_tree.
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 only parameter 'ids' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description provides essential format guidance ('Comma-separated list of IDs'), which goes beyond the bare type 'string'. However, it does not explain what these IDs refer to (presumably metadata IDs) or how they map to the endpoint, leaving some ambiguity.
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 clearly states 'Get the leaves of an item,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_library_metadata_by_id_children and get_library_metadata_by_id_grandchildren by using the term 'leaves,' though it doesn't elaborate on the meaning of 'leaves' in this context.
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 about when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as get_library_metadata_by_ids_children, get_library_metadata_by_ids_grandchildren, or get_library_metadata_by_ids_tree. The description simply states what it does without explaining the selection criteria or edge cases where one would prefer this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.