Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
immich-photo-manager

immich-photo-manager

by drolosoft
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get server version

get_server_version
Read-only

Retrieve the running Immich server version as major, minor, and patch numbers to check compatibility or report the current deployment.

Instructions

Get the Immich server version. Use this to check compatibility or report the running server version. Read-only.

Returns: JSON with major, minor, and patch version numbers.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_server_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's "Read-only" line merely restates that. It adds little beyond annotations other than confirming there is no mutation, and the stated return shape duplicates the output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no wasted wording. The "Read-only" and "Returns" lines are somewhat redundant against the annotations and output schema, but they cost almost nothing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description says everything needed to select and call it. The return-value sentence is unnecessary given the output schema, which is the only minor completeness-adjacent excess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level confusion is possible here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get the Immich server version" states a specific verb and resource, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from nearby diagnostic siblings such as ping or get_capabilities, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use this to check compatibility or report the running server version" gives concrete use contexts rather than leaving intent implied. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the alternative diagnostics tools an agent should pick instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools