Retrieve photos from a specific date or date range. Filter by date to find and pull the exact images you need.
Get photos from a specific date or date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| size | No | Number of results (default 20) | |
| withImages | No | Include thumbnail images |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, an upper bound on returned assets, or what the default size of 20 implies for a whole-day query — all things an agent needs before calling a date-based listing tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, correctly leading with the verb and resource. It is arguably too terse given the tool's optional parameters, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description should cover what comes back and how many items, yet it says nothing about return values or the 20-item default. Only the purpose is communicated, leaving behavioral gaps unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so 'date', 'size', and 'withImages' are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'date range' phrasing adds a nuance the schema does not support (a single YYYY-MM-DD value), which is mildly counterproductive rather than informative.
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 and resource ('Get photos') and scopes it to a date, which distinguishes it from the immich_search_* siblings that filter by content or metadata. However, it says 'or date range' while the schema exposes only a single 'date' string, so the scope claim is slightly wider than what the tool actually accepts.
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 indication of when to prefer this over immich_search_smart, immich_search_metadata, or immich_get_asset, all of which are plausible alternatives for retrieving photos. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.