Get the authenticated Plex user's account details and token. Use this to verify identity or fetch user-specific information from Plex.
Get Token Details.
GET /user
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the phrase 'Get Token Details' and the endpoint, which does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the annotations imply. No authentication requirements, response handling, or caveats are mentioned.
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 very short and front-loaded, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter read operation ограничењима, but it is so sparse that it omits necessary context like the purpose of the token details or the relationship to the tool name. It is concise but under-specified.
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 read operation with no parameters and an output schema, the description might be minimally sufficient. However, the mismatch between the tool name and description, plus the complete lack of usage context, leaves an agent uncertain about when to use it among the large sibling set.
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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema provides 100% coverage by having none. Baseline 4 applies.
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 'Get Token Details' with the endpoint 'GET /user', which is a specific operation, but it conflicts with the tool name 'list_user' which suggests listing users. The many sibling tools (list_users, list_users_2, list_users_account) are not differentiated from this one, leaving ambiguity about what exactly this tool does.
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. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools like list_users or list_users_account, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.