immich_create_tagCreate a new tag with a name, optional color, and parent ID, enabling users to organize and filter assets.
Create a tag
Create a new tag by providing a name and optional color.
Immich operation: POST /tags · tag: Tags
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | name (request body) | |
| color | No | color (request body) | |
| parentId | No | parentId (request body) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the underlying endpoint (POST /tags) and confirms color is optional, but says nothing about behavior on duplicate names, auth requirements, or tag hierarchy effects.
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?
Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the input contract. The repeated 'Create a tag'/'Create a new tag' phrasing is slightly redundant but not harmful.
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?
Adequate for a simple three-parameter create tool with no output schema. It nonetheless omits duplicate-name behavior and the parentId hierarchy concept, both of which an agent would need to call it correctly alongside immich_upsert_tags.
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 nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the name/color fields but omits parentId entirely, even though that parameter enables nested tag creation — a meaningful capability the schema's bare 'parentId (request body)' label does not explain.
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+resource ('Create a tag') and clarifies the required input (name) plus optional color. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling immich_upsert_tags, which also creates tags.
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_upsert_tags, immich_update_tag, or immich_tag_assets. The agent is left to infer that this is a single-tag creation call with no deduplication/upsert semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.