Retrieve content hubs for a Plex library section by its ID, surfacing curated rows like recently added or continue watching.
Get Section Hubs.
GET /library/sections/{sectionId}/hubs
Args: section_id: The unique identifier of the library section
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section_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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the GET operation, such as response shape, pagination, or any side effects.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the endpoint and parameter documentation. No unnecessary text is present.
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 read-only endpoint with one documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is not explaining what 'hubs' are or when to use this over related hub endpoints.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting section_id as 'The unique identifier of the library section.' For a single simple integer parameter, this is sufficient.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get Section Hubs') and includes the exact endpoint path. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_hubs or get_hubs_sections_by_section_id.
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 alternatives. The description only restates the endpoint and parameter without explaining context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.