Create a new media request in Overseerr or Jellyseerr by submitting the required payload. Use it to add movies or TV shows to your request queue.
Create new request.
POST /api/v1/request
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?
The description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations and the obvious POST semantics. It does not mention auth requirements, side effects, duplicate-request behavior, or what a successful creation returns; the idempotentHint is already supplied by annotations. There is no contradiction between the description and 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 description is short and front-loaded, stating the action and endpoint before the payload guidance. It contains no filler or redundant explanation. The 'Args' block repeats some schema information, but the overall size is appropriate.
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 create operation with an opaque body object, the description is not fully self-contained; it relies on the agent to call /schema or a matching GET endpoint to understand the payload. It also omits usage context and side-effect information, though the output schema covers return value shape. The explicit instruction to read /schema is a partial mitigation.
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 0% schema coverage, the description must carry the burden for parameter meaning. It identifies body as the request payload and instructs the agent to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint for expected fields, which is useful process guidance. However, it does not describe the actual structure or constraints of the body object, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create new request') and gives the exact HTTP endpoint POST /api/v1/request. It clearly indicates this creates a top-level request resource rather than updating an existing one, though it does not explicitly contrast with create_request_by_request_id_by_status. The core action and resource are unambiguous.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_request_by_request_id_by_status, update_request_by_request_id, or the relevant GET/list tools. The only hint is 'Read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first,' which is a prerequisite rather than usage context or an exclusion. Agents are left to infer the right call from naming conventions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.