Search for recognized people by name in your Immich photo library to retrieve person entries with face thumbnails, optionally including hidden people.
Search for recognized people by name. Returns person entries with face thumbnails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Person name to search for | |
| withHidden | No | Include hidden people (default false) |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ('person entries with face thumbnails'), but says nothing about match semantics (exact vs fuzzy/prefix), result limits or pagination, hidden-people behavior (only covered in the schema), or any permission requirements.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the return summary follows. Nothing is redundant.
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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and a rough return shape but omits matching semantics, result limits, and result ordering. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent might care about.
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 both parameters (name, withHidden) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ('search') and resource ('people') plus the matching key ('by name'), and adds what the result contains ('person entries with face thumbnails'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling immich_list_people, so the boundary between search and list is left for the agent to infer.
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?
The phrase 'by name' implies the usage context (you have a name to look up), which implicitly distinguishes it from immich_list_people, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_people, merge_people, or smart search. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.