Authenticate to Overseerr or Jellyseerr by submitting a Plex token, enabling access to manage requests, settings, and media services.
Sign in using a Plex token.
POST /api/v1/auth/plex
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 provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that auth is performed via a Plex token, which is a relevant authentication detail, but it does not describe side effects such as session creation or token validation behavior.
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 tightly structured: a one-line purpose, the HTTP endpoint, then a single parameter note. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.
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 single opaque body parameter with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is adequately complete. It tells the agent what the operation does and how to discover the required body fields, though it stops short of explaining response semantics or failure behavior.
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 coverage is 0% and the body is an opaque additionalProperties object. The description compensates by labeling body as a 'Request payload' and explicitly directing the agent to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint for field details, which is unusually helpful for an otherwise undocumented body.
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?
Description states a clear, specific action: 'Sign in using a Plex token.' This distinguishes it from sibling auth operations like create_auth_local and create_auth_logout, and the verb/resource combination is immediately actionable.
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 one useful operational instruction: 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.' However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond reading the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.