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

immich-photo-manager

by drolosoft
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Update stack

update_stack
Destructive

Change the cover asset of a photo stack so the library displays a different image, updating the stack on the server.

Instructions

Change which asset fronts a stack (the one the library shows). Side effect: updates the stack on the server.

Args:
    stack_id: The stack to update.
    primary_asset_id: The asset that should become the cover. It must already
        belong to the stack.

Returns: JSON with the updated stack.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stack_idYes
primary_asset_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses a server-side side effect, a return shape, and the ownership precondition. It does not say what happens to the previous cover, whether the change is reversible, or what errors occur if the asset isn't in the stack — gaps that matter for a destructive mutation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The action and its side effect are front-loaded in the first two lines, and the Args/Returns blocks add only information not already available elsewhere — no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, side effect, and return value. It falls short only on destructive-operation behavior (effect on the prior cover, failure modes), which an agent would still want.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does: it defines stack_id and explains primary_asset_id becomes the cover and must already belong to the stack, a constraint absent from the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Change which asset fronts a stack') with a parenthetical clarifying what 'fronts' means, which immediately separates it from create_stack/delete_stack/get_stack siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the precondition that the asset 'must already belong to the stack', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer create_stack, delete_stack, or update_asset_metadata 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