Synchronize user view state across Plex devices by updating the view state sync endpoint, ensuring playback progress and watch status remain consistent.
Update View State Sync.
PUT /user/view_state_sync
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the HTTP method (PUT), which corroborates idempotency but adds no behavioral context such as side effects, authentication requirements, or what state is modified.
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 with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. It contains only a tautological phrase and an endpoint, omitting all explanatory content that the tool's complexity and ambiguous name demand.
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?
The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety traits, but the core semantics of the operation — what 'view state sync' is, what updating it does, and when it applies — are entirely missing. With zero parameters, the description is the only place to convey the tool's meaning, and it fails to do so.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate.
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?
"Update View State Sync." is essentially the tool name split into words — a tautology that adds no meaning beyond the name. The endpoint "PUT /user/view_state_sync" confirms the resource path but does not explain what "view state sync" actually is or what updating it entails, so an agent cannot distinguish its purpose from the many other update_* and sync_* siblings.
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?
The description offers zero guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like get_sync_items_by_sync_id, list_sync, update_sync_refresh_content, or update_sync_refresh_synclists. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated anywhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.