Update a batch of user accounts in Overseerr or Jellyseerr by sending the modified fields in the request body.
Update batch of users.
PUT /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 provide the safety profile: not read-only, idempotent, not destructive. The description adds the endpoint and a schema-discovery note, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like partial failure behavior or side effects. It does not contradict the 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 compact: a one-sentence purpose, the endpoint, and a single args note. Every line earns its place, and the key operation 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?
With annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, plus an output schema present, the main missing piece is the body structure. The description addresses this by telling the agent to consult the GET or /schema endpoint. Minor gaps remain around batch body formatting and explicit routing against sibling tools, but they do not block invocation.
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 body parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties: true and 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by naming body as the request payload and directing the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected fields. It does not spell out the exact batch shape, but this is a meaningful pointer for an open-world 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 'Update batch of users' with a clear verb and resource. The word 'batch' differentiates it from the sibling update_user_by_user_id, which targets a single user, and the HTTP endpoint is provided.
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 batch scope is clear, and the instruction to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before building the body is a useful precondition. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over update_user_by_user_id or list other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.