Create automatic tagging rules to assign tags to media items, enabling consistent library organization and filtering.
Create AutoTagging.
POST /api/v3/autotagging
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 this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the POST endpoint and schema discovery advice, which is useful context, but it does not disclose possible side effects, error behavior, or response semantics. There is no contradiction 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 description is short and front-loaded. The 'Create AutoTagging' line is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the endpoint and schema-guidance sentence add practical value without unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter create tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. The schema lookup instruction resolves the main ambiguity around the open body parameter, though adding a brief note on what an autotagging is would improve overall completeness.
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 provides only an open 'body' object with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that body is the request payload and directing the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover the expected 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 states 'Create AutoTagging' and gives the endpoint 'POST /api/v3/autotagging', making the verb and resource clear. However, it does not distinguish this from related autotagging operations like update_autotagging_by_id or list_autotagging, so the name carries much of the differentiation.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update or list autotagging. The only instruction is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint for payload fields, which addresses payload construction rather than tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.