Create a new photo album in Immich and optionally add assets by ID, with a custom name and description.
Create a new album, optionally adding assets to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assetIds | No | Asset IDs to add | |
| albumName | Yes | Album name | |
| description | No | Album description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the operation requires authentication, what happens if albumName already exists, whether asset additions are transactional, or any other behavioral trait. Only the name and asset-inclusion behavior are conveyed.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and the optional modifier. Efficient and scannable, though perhaps too terse for a mutation tool.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should clarify write semantics, auth requirements, and behavior on duplicate names. The absence of annotations means the description must do more, and it doesn't.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('album'), and mentions the optional asset inclusion. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like immich_add_to_album or immich_list_albums, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus immich_add_to_album (which adds assets to existing albums) or other album tools. The 'optionally adding assets' hint is the only contextual signal, and it's implicit rather than actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.