immich-photo-manager

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update asset metadata

update_asset_metadata

Destructive

Update metadata fields on a specific Immich asset to correct dates, GPS coordinates, descriptions, favorite status, or rating without altering unprovided fields.

Instructions

Update metadata fields on a specific asset. Use this to fix dates, correct GPS, add descriptions, or change favorite/rating status. Only provided fields are modified. Side effect: permanently changes asset metadata in Immich.

Args:
    asset_id: The asset's UUID.
    date_time_original: ISO 8601 datetime (e.g. '2019-07-14T15:23:41.000Z').
    latitude: GPS latitude, decimal degrees (-90.0 to 90.0).
    longitude: GPS longitude, decimal degrees (-180.0 to 180.0).
    description: Free-text description/caption for the asset.
    is_favorite: Set favorite status (true/false).
    rating: -1 to reject the photo, or 1 to 5 stars. A rating cannot be
        cleared from here, and 0 is not a rating Immich 3.x accepts.

Returns: JSON with the updated asset object.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_asset_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rating`	No
`asset_id`	Yes
`latitude`	No
`longitude`	No
`description`	No
`is_favorite`	No
`date_time_original`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.1.0May 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further: it explains partial-update semantics ("Only provided fields are modified"), names the system of record (Immich), and warns of the permanence explicitly as a "Side effect". The rating constraint ("-1 to reject... a rating cannot be cleared from here, and 0 is not a rating Immich 3.x accepts") is behavioral knowledge an agent could not derive from any structured field.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and intent, then a behavior/side-effect line, then a compact Args block that is dense with real information per line. The only waste is the trailing "Returns: JSON with the updated asset object," since an output schema is already supplied and describes the return value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a seven-parameter mutation with zero schema description coverage, this definition covers purpose, when-to-use, partial-update semantics, permanence, per-parameter formats and constraints, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely and correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the entire burden, and it does: it documents all seven parameters with formats and ranges (ISO 8601 with an example, latitude -90 to 90, longitude -180 to 180) plus the non-obvious rating encoding including the invalid-0 and non-clearable edge cases. This adds substantially more than the bare field names and null defaults in the schema.

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?

"Update metadata fields on a specific asset" gives a specific verb and resource, and the phrase "a specific asset" signals single-asset scope, which implicitly differentiates it from the bulk sibling update_assets_metadata. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the singular/plural split.

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 fix dates, correct GPS, add descriptions, or change favorite/rating status" maps concrete user intents onto the tool, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It never states when NOT to use it or names update_assets_metadata as the alternative for batch edits, leaving the key disambiguation implicit.

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

Deploy Server