Authenticate a user with a local account to gain access to media management, requests, and server settings.
Sign in using a local account.
POST /api/v1/auth/local
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 operation type and idempotency. The description adds a meaningful behavioral directive: the body is opaque and the agent must read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before invoking. It also discloses the exact HTTP endpoint. No contradictions with 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 definition is brief, front-loads the purpose, and each line serves a purpose: the HTTP path, the parameter, and the fetch-first instruction. No fluff and easily scannable.
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 tool whose only parameter is an opaque body, the description tells the agent what the tool does and how to learn the required fields. The output schema exists, covering response semantics. It could add explicit alternatives or typical auth fields, but it is sufficient for a simple, schema-driven auth endpoint.
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 single parameter 'body' is completely undocumented in the schema (0% coverage). The description compensates by labeling it as the request payload and instructing the agent to fetch the expected fields from the GET or /schema endpoint. This gives the agent a concrete discovery path, though it doesn't enumerate the fields.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Sign in using a local account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling auth tools like create_auth_plex and create_auth_reset_password by scoping it to local accounts. The HTTP path reinforces the specific operation.
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 gives context that this tool is for local-account sign-in, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'do not use for Plex.' An agent must infer the boundary from the name and sibling list, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.