Create a user account in Overseerr/Jellyseerr by submitting the required user data. Use it to add users with permissions and settings.
Create new user.
POST /api/v1/user
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 declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a write operation that is idempotent. The description adds no further behavioral context such as authentication requirements, required fields, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not enhance them.
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 concise and front-loaded: it states the action in the first line, then provides the HTTP endpoint and a note about the body argument. There is no fluff. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating endpoint and args), but overall it is efficient.
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 description leaves ambiguity about which exact GET endpoint to consult and does not specify the expected body structure beyond an external reference. Given the large number of sibling tools and the open-ended body schema, this could confuse an agent. It does not cover authentication or other prerequisites, and while an output schema exists, the input side is under-specified.
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 schema has a single 'body' object with no property descriptions (coverage 0%). The description points the agent to 'the matching GET or the /schema endpoint' to discover fields, which provides a useful path but does not enumerate actual field names or types. This partially compensates for the empty schema but leaves the agent to do additional lookups.
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?
States a clear action and resource: 'Create new user.' It is unambiguous and directly conveys a write operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling create_user_* tools (e.g., create_user_import_from_plex), so it doesn't fully meet the bar for distinguishing among 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only advises reading the 'matching GET or the /schema endpoint' to understand the payload, which is about constructing the request, not about selection criteria. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.