Fetches detailed information about a specific Plex metadata agent using its unique ID, enabling inspection of agent configuration and capabilities.
Get Metadata Agent Details.
GET /system/agents/{agentId}
Args: agent_id: The unique identifier of the metadata agent
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_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 that it is a GET request. It does not contradict annotations. Since annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description is sufficient.
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?
Extremely concise: 5 lines with the purpose and endpoint. No wasted words, but ends with an 'Args' section that is redundant with the schema.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, but it's sparse for a single-parameter tool. It doesn't mention that the agent_id might be available from list_system_agents, which could help an agent know how to obtain it.
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 description includes the parameter name 'agent_id' and notes it's the unique identifier, but with 0% schema coverage, it should add more detail, such as format or source. The schema only says 'string', so the description's 'unique identifier' is minimal but not entirely 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?
States it 'Get Metadata Agent Details' and includes the endpoint, but the description is vague about what a 'metadata agent' is or what details it returns. The name and endpoint are clear, but it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'list_system_agents'.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_system_agents. The description does not mention any context for use, such as needing an agent ID from a prior call, or when to prefer listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.