Restore a shuffled Plex play queue to its original order by providing the play queue ID.
Unshuffle a play queue.
PUT /playQueues/{playQueueId}/unshuffle
Args: play_queue_id: The ID of the play queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| play_queue_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 declare the tool to be non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. 'Unshuffle a play queue' states the core side effect, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond that, such as what happens to playback order or whether authorization is required.
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 with the operation in the first sentence. The endpoint and Args lines are clear, though the Args line largely repeats information already present in the schema and could be omitted.
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 one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, it does not define what 'unshuffle' actually does (e.g., restoring original order versus disabling shuffle) or differentiate it from shuffle/reset siblings, leaving a selection gap.
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 needed to compensate for the single parameter. It only restates 'play_queue_id: The ID of the play queue,' which adds no real meaning beyond the schema's property name and title 'Play Queue Id.' No constraints, format, or source for the ID are provided.
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 opens with 'Unshuffle a play queue,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the operation. The endpoint line reinforces the target resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling operations such as shuffle or reset, relying mostly on the tool name for that differentiation.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention when unshuffle is appropriate versus shuffle, reset, or other play-queue operations, nor does it list prerequisites or exclusions. The only cue is the verb 'unshuffle,' which implies but does not explain the condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.