Set a new cover image for your Trakt profile. Provide the user payload with the desired cover to update and replace the current one.
Update cover image.
PUT /users/set_cover
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 establish that the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world; the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose whether the existing cover is replaced, what permissions are needed, or any other side effects.
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 exceptionally compact: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and a short Args entry. The key information is front-loaded and there is no filler.
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 pointer to the matching GET or /schema endpoint is essential for an open-world opaque body and is present. However, the description does not identify which sibling GET tool matches, and it omits prerequisites, auth requirements, and the effect on the existing cover, making it adequate but not fully complete.
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 single body parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by labeling it as the 'Request payload' and directing the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover expected fields, which is appropriate 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?
The opening line 'Update cover image' states a concrete action and resource, and the PUT endpoint is given explicitly. It is distinguishable from siblings like update_users_avatar by naming 'cover image', though it does not clarify whose cover is being updated.
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 implies its use case by stating the action, and it gives a workflow hint to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over other update tools or provide any exclusion/alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.