immich_get_cluster_group_usersRetrieve the list of users who are members of a specific cluster group by its ID. Use it to manage or audit group memberships.
Retrieve the users of a cluster group
Retrieve the users that are a member of the cluster group.
Immich operation: GET /cluster-groups/{id}/users · tag: Cluster groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | format: uuid |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – it does not mention pagination, the response shape, or authorization requirements for reading group members.
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 description is short but wastes its leading sentence by restating the title and then restating itself again ('Retrieve the users...' twice). The Immich operation/tag line is useful, but the duplication makes it less front-loaded than it could be.
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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover safety and whose schema documents the sole argument, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is required.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the semantics (uuid-formatted id), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description refers to 'the cluster group' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 (retrieve) and resource (users who are members of a cluster group), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings such as immich_get_cluster_group_requests_for_group or immich_leave_cluster_group, and the opening line merely restates the title.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related cluster-group siblings (requests, regenerate_people, leave), nor any stated prerequisites. The description only says what it does, leaving all selection logic to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.