Upload an image to Immich from base64 data or generate one from a description, adding it to your library.
Upload an image to Immich. Provide base64 data or a description to generate. The image is added to the library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileName | Yes | Filename (e.g., photo.jpg) | |
| mimeType | No | MIME type (default: image/jpeg) | |
| base64Data | Yes | Image data as base64 string |
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 only says 'The image is added to the library' — it doesn't disclose whether uploads require auth, whether they're idempotent, what happens on duplicate filenames, or what the response contains. Significant gaps for a mutation 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?
Two compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded. No wasted words, though 'The image is added to the library' is somewhat redundant with the upload verb.
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 3-param upload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important details: required vs optional fields (base64Data and fileName required, mimeType optional), response format, and authentication requirements. It leaves an agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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%, with fileName, mimeType, and base64Data all documented. The description's note about 'description to generate' hints at an alternative mode but doesn't clarify how it maps to the schema parameters; the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb+resource ('Upload an image to Immich') and the modes of input. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like immich_update_asset or immich_describe_photo, though the 'upload' verb makes its role reasonably distinct.
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?
Mentions 'provide base64 data or a description to generate', suggesting an alternative input mode, but it doesn't specify when to use each mode or when to prefer upload over update_asset. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.