Lists WebSocket notifications from your Plex server, providing real-time event data for monitoring and automation.
Get WebSocket Notifications.
GET /:/websockets/notifications
| 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 cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Get'. It fails to clarify whether this is a one-time list or a persistent WebSocket stream, which is a significant ambiguity.
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 free of fluff, but the first sentence largely restates the tool name. The endpoint line adds a technical detail, yet the overall structure provides no context beyond the bare call.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, it leaves key contextual gaps around the notification semantics and the distinction from EventSource notifications.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter descriptions are needed, and the description correctly avoids inventing any.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves WebSocket Notifications with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling list_eventsource_notifications, so an agent might confuse 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 like list_eventsource_notifications. It only gives the endpoint and a terse one-liner, leaving the decision entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.