immich_get_cluster_group_requestsRetrieve pending requests for the current user to join a cluster group, so you can review who is waiting for approval.
Retrieve cluster group requests
Retrieve the pending requests for the current user to join a cluster group.
Immich operation: GET /cluster-groups/requests · tag: Cluster groups
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful constraint that results are 'pending' and scoped to the current user, but says nothing about pagination or result shape.
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?
The first line restates the title verbatim and the second sentence largely repeats it with slightly more detail, so a meaningful portion of the text is redundant. The operation/tag lines are boilerplate rather than front-loaded value.
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, parameterless read tool this covers what an agent needs: it knows what is returned (pending join requests for the current user) and that it is safe. No output schema exists, so a brief note on the response structure would have been a bonus but is not critical here.
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 and the schema is an empty object at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless read.
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 clear verb+resource ('retrieve cluster group requests') plus a scope qualifier: pending requests for the current user. This implicitly separates it from the group-scoped sibling, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'for the current user' hints at how it differs from immich_get_cluster_group_requests_for_group, but the agent must infer that routing decision rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.