immich_get_admin_onboardingCheck whether Immich admin onboarding is complete by retrieving the current admin onboarding status from system metadata. Use it to verify setup progress.
Retrieve admin onboarding
Retrieve the current admin onboarding status.
Immich operation: GET /system-metadata/admin-onboarding · tag: System metadata
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only restates the title ('Retrieve admin onboarding') and adds no behavioral context such as auth requirements or what the status object contains.
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, but the title is redundantly repeated as the first line and again as 'Retrieve the current admin onboarding status.' The operation/tag line is genuinely useful metadata, but the opening duplication wastes space.
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 zero-parameter read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It never hints at what the onboarding status contains or why an admin would fetch it, leaving a small completeness gap.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema, which is already fully specified.
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 (Retrieve) and resource (admin onboarding status) and even cites the underlying operation (GET /system-metadata/admin-onboarding). However, it does not differentiate from closely named siblings like immich_get_user_onboarding or immich_update_admin_onboarding.
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 description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name alternatives or conditions that would select this tool over immich_get_user_onboarding. Usage is only inferable from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.