Retrieve photos from a specific Plex library section by providing its section ID to access and manage visual media.
Get Section Photos.
GET /library/sections/{sectionId}/photos
Args: section_id: The id of the 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the endpoint path, which is not a behavioral trait; it says nothing about pagination, response shape, or access constraints.
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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It could be improved by adding usage context, but the structure itself is clean.
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?
The tool is simple (one required parameter), has read-only annotations, and an output schema, so the description is minimally viable for invocation. However, it lacks any guidance on when this endpoint is appropriate among the many sibling getters and gives no practical context for section_id.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It only restates 'The id of the section', adding little beyond the parameter name and type; no guidance is given on obtaining or formatting section_id.
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 the operation ('Get Section Photos') and identifies the resource via the endpoint path. It doesn't explicitly differentiate among the many sibling library-section tools, but the photos resource is distinct enough to avoid immediate confusion.
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 instead of the many related library-section getters. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.