Link an OAuth PIN to finalize Plex authentication and obtain an access token.
Link OAuth PIN.
PUT /pins/link
Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action; it does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or what 'linking' an OAuth PIN entails. It does not contradict the 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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only the endpoint, the single parameter, and a brief actionable instruction. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.
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?
While an output schema exists and annotations cover basic flags, the description still leaves significant ambiguity about what 'link' means, when the operation should be performed, and what the body should contain beyond a generic pointer to other endpoints. It is minimally sufficient but not complete for confident invocation.
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 schema provides no property details and the body is an open object with additionalProperties true, so schema coverage is 0%. The description identifies body as the 'request payload' and advises reading the GET or /schema endpoint for fields, which is a useful pointer, but it does not describe any actual fields or expected structure, leaving the agent to discover the semantics externally.
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: 'Link OAuth PIN' with the endpoint 'PUT /pins/link'. This makes the operation identifiable and is not merely a restatement of the tool name, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling PIN tools like create_pins or get_pins_by_pin_id.
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 such as create_pins or get_pins_by_pin_id. The only instruction is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which is a preparation step rather than a usage condition or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.