List all recognized people in Immich with their face counts, optionally including hidden people.
List all recognized people with face counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| withHidden | No | Include hidden people |
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 the full behavioral burden for what is presumably a read-only listing. It says nothing about safety profile, whether hidden people are excluded by default, ordering, or pagination/result-size behavior, which matters for a list endpoint.
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?
One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but as raw conciseness it is efficient.
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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential outcome (people plus face counts). It falls short on routing versus immich_search_people and on default hidden-person behavior and result limits.
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% with a single self-documenting boolean ('WithHidden: Include hidden people'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no extra meaning about hidden-people semantics beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.
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 ('List all recognized people') and adds the return detail 'with face counts', so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling immich_search_people, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical sibling immich_search_people. The agent must infer the difference between listing and searching from the names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.