Retrieve all authentication keys associated with your Plex account to verify active credentials and manage access for media server and cloud services.
Get Auth Keys.
GET /auth/keys
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the HTTP GET endpoint, which reinforces the read-only nature. There is no contradiction, but the description itself provides little additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already cover.
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 concise, with the key operation 'Get Auth Keys' front-loaded and the endpoint provided on the second line. No words are wasted, though it leans toward minimal rather than richly informative.
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 zero-parameter read-only list operation with an output schema and safety annotations already provided, the description is largely complete. It identifies the operation and endpoint, and no extra input guidance is needed. It could add a note about what auth keys represent or when listing is useful, but nothing essential is missing.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries no parameter burden. The description correctly implies a simple list operation with no required inputs, which is sufficient for a no-parameter tool.
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 Auth Keys' and the endpoint 'GET /auth/keys'. This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling creation tools like create_auth_token or create_auth_jwk, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state the purpose of auth keys, when listing them is appropriate, or that other tools should be used for creation or deletion. The usage context must be inferred entirely 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.