Retrieve a list of Plex resources linked to your account, including servers and clients, to identify targets for subsequent operations.
Get Legacy Resources.
GET /api/resources
| 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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint; it does not describe pagination, response format, or other behavioral traits. This is baseline acceptable but adds minimal beyond annotations.
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 short with no filler, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though the term 'Legacy' remains unexplained.
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?
Despite having no parameters and output schema present, the description does not clarify what 'Legacy Resources' refers to or why an agent would use this over closely related siblings like list_resources_2. The context gap is significant given the large sibling list.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed, satisfying the baseline for no-parameter tools.
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 verb and a resource ('Get Legacy Resources') and gives the endpoint, which is more than a tautology. However, 'Legacy Resources' is undefined and ambiguous, and with a sibling named list_resources_2, the term 'Legacy' does not clearly differentiate the two.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of list_resources_2, list_player_resources, or any criteria for choosing this endpoint over others, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.