Retrieve a specific Plex playlist by its ID to view its details, tracks, or metadata. Use this to fetch playlist information directly from your media server.
Retrieve Playlist.
GET /playlists/{playlistId}
Args: playlist_id: The ID of the playlist
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playlist_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, and the description's 'Retrieve' is consistent with them. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—for example, it does not clarify whether only metadata is returned or whether items are included, nor any auth or rate-limit implications.
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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, then the arguments. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 single-parameter read endpoint with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient to call correctly. The main gap is the absence of any explicit distinction from the sibling items endpoint, but the output schema covers the return shape.
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 sole parameter is described as 'The ID of the playlist', which adds almost no meaning beyond the schema's title 'Playlist Id' and integer type. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate but does not.
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 clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Playlist'), and the endpoint path GET /playlists/{playlistId} makes the target unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling item endpoints. However it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_playlists_by_playlist_id_items or list_playlists, so it stops short of a top score.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_playlists_by_playlist_id_items or list_playlists. No use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned; the only implied context comes from the name and endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.