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

immich-photo-manager

by drolosoft
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Upload asset

upload_asset

Upload a local photo or video file to Immich to ingest new media into your library and optionally add it to an album.

Instructions

Upload a local photo or video file to Immich. Use this to ingest new media into the library. Constraints: max 25MB, allowed types: jpg, jpeg, png, heic, mp4, mov, gif, webp. Symlinks are rejected for security. The original file is NOT modified or deleted. Side effect: creates a new asset in Immich.

Args:
    file_path: Absolute path to the local file (e.g. '/tmp/photo.jpg'). Must exist.
    album_id: Optional album UUID to add the uploaded asset to immediately.

Returns: JSON with new asset id, filename, size_mb, and album assignment status if applicable.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
album_idNo
file_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false annotations by disclosing the 25MB cap, allowed file types, symlink rejection for security, and crucially that the original file is not modified or deleted. It also names the write side effect (creates a new asset).

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?

Front-loads the core action and constraints, then cleanly separates Args and Returns. Constraint list is dense but each item earns its place; slightly verbose but well organized.

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?

Covers purpose, constraints, side effects, both parameters, and return fields for a simple two-parameter upload tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by documenting both params: file_path must be an absolute path that exists, and album_id is an optional UUID for immediate album assignment. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. behavior if the asset already exists).

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 ('Upload a local photo or video file to Immich') and frames the intent as ingesting new media, which separates it from siblings like add_assets_to_album or get_asset_image.

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?

'Use this to ingest new media into the library' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for related flows (e.g. adding an existing asset to an album vs uploading a new one).

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