immich_download_assetDownload the original file of a specified Immich asset by ID, optionally returning the edited version when available.
Download original asset
Downloads the original file of the specified asset.
Immich operation: GET /assets/{id}/original · tag: Assets
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | format: uuid | |
| key | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| edited | No | Return edited asset if available |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint and tag, neither of which is behavioral context. It says nothing about what the 'edited' flag does, whether the response is a binary stream, or how large/partial downloads behave.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded; the title, one clarifying sentence, and a compact endpoint/tag line. It wastes nothing, though the repeated title adds no information.
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?
A download tool with 4 parameters (two undocumented), no output schema, and no behavior around edited vs original, ranges, or auth is under-specified. The endpoint line is useful metadata but does not fill the gaps an agent needs to call this correctly.
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 50%: 'id' has format: uuid and 'edited' has a description, but 'key' and 'slug' are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for partial coverage with no compensating text.
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 (download) and resource (original asset file), and the endpoint reference 'GET /assets/{id}/original' confirms the target. It is distinguishable from siblings like immich_download_asset_file and immich_download_archive by specifying the original file of a single asset.
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 vs alternatives such as immich_download_asset_file, immich_get_asset_file, or immich_view_asset. The agent must infer the difference from names alone, which is exactly the ambiguity a definition should resolve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.