immich_download_database_backupDownload an Immich database backup file by filename. Retrieves admin database backups for restore, archival, or migration.
Download database backup
Downloads the database backup file
Immich operation: GET /admin/database-backups/{filename} · tag: Database Backups (admin)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | pattern: ^[a-zA-Z0-9_\-.]+$ |
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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the admin scope and the REST endpoint, which is useful context, but says nothing about the returned payload (a binary file) or rate/transfer behavior.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the title line and 'Downloads the database backup file' duplicate the same information, so one of the two sentences does not earn its place.
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 read operation whose annotations cover the safety profile, the definition is minimally adequate. It still omits the fact that the response is a downloadable binary file rather than structured data, which matters given there is no output schema.
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% and the single filename parameter carries a pattern constraint, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no filename syntax or provenance detail (e.g., where to obtain valid filenames) beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource (download the database backup file) and adds the underlying operation GET /admin/database-backups/{filename}. However, 'Downloads the database backup file' is largely a restatement of the name/title and does not distinguish it from siblings such as immich_list_database_backups or the other download_* tools beyond the admin-tagged endpoint.
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 is given. The '(admin)' tag hints at an authorization context but there is no statement of prerequisites, no mention of what to do first (e.g., list backups to obtain a filename), and no alternatives contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.