Set Plex library section preferences by section ID, using key-value pairs to update configuration settings.
Set section prefs.
PUT /library/sections/{sectionId}/prefs
Args: section_id: Section identifier prefs: The preference key to retrieve or set
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefs | No | ||
| section_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?
The annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only 'Set section prefs' and the endpoint, with no extra context about authorization, effects on existing preferences, or response behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds no behavioral detail beyond them.
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 short and front-loaded with 'Set section prefs,' but the Args block largely repeats schema property names with minimal added value. The phrase 'retrieve or set' is also unnecessary and confusing for an update/PUT operation.
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 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description fails to explain what preference keys/values are acceptable or what the request body should contain. An agent trying to call this tool correctly would still have to guess at the semantics of the prefs object.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It gives thin labels like 'Section identifier' and 'The preference key to retrieve or set,' but the schema types prefs as an object, so calling it a 'key' is misleading and does not explain how to structure preferred values or which preference keys are valid.
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 action and resource: 'Set section prefs' along with the PUT endpoint. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_library_sections_by_section_id_prefs or update_library_metadata_by_ids_prefs, but the verb+resource combination is reasonably clear.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives for reading prefs, updating metadata prefs, or modifying DVR prefs. The description only implies usage through the name and endpoint, with no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.