Refresh Plex sync content to ensure media items are up-to-date on your devices. Triggers a refresh of the sync queue to resolve stale or missing content.
Refresh Sync Content.
PUT /sync/refreshContent
| 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?
The description adds no behavior beyond the name; it does not disclose what the refresh does, what state it affects, whether authorization is needed, or what side effects occur beyond the annotations. The endpoint path is also encoded in the tool name gallery. The idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations are present, but the description itself contributes no additional transparent context.
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 two short lines, front-loads the action, and includes the explicit HTTP endpoint. There is no wasted text; every token contributes.
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 no-parameter call with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but it lacks context on what 'Sync Content' encompasses and how it differs from 'Refresh Synclists'. The agent is left to infer the behavior from the endpoint pattern and sibling names. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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?
With zero parameters, there is no parameter burden. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description is not required to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 names a specific action ('Refresh') on a resource ('Sync Content') and includes the HTTP endpoint, giving clear verb+resource semantics. However, it does not distinguish 'Sync Content' from the sibling tool 'update_sync_refresh_synclists', and the wording is a near-restatement of the tool name, so it misses full sibling 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?
There is no guidance about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the operation and endpoint, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot tell whether to use this over update_sync_refresh_synclists or other refresh-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.