immich_get_partnersRetrieve Immich partners to see who shares assets with you or whom you share assets with, filtered by shared-by or shared-with direction.
Retrieve partners
Retrieve a list of partners with whom assets are shared.
Immich operation: GET /partners · tag: Partners
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| direction | Yes | Partner direction |
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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context that partners are asset-sharing relationships and notes the underlying GET /partners operation, but does not describe return shape or whether the list is scoped to the authenticated user.
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?
Front-loaded and short, with the purpose in the first line. There is minor redundancy between the title, the leading 'Retrieve partners', and the following sentence, plus boilerplate Immich operation metadata, but overall it is tight.
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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It does not describe what a partner record contains, which is a minor gap given 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 coverage is 100% with a single required enum parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain the distinction between the 'shared-by' and 'shared-with' enum values, which would be the one place it could add meaning 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?
States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (partners) and clarifies that these are users with whom assets are shared. The verb clearly distinguishes it from siblings like immich_create_partner, immich_remove_partner, and immich_update_partner, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this lists partners, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of the mutation siblings (create/update/remove_partner) as alternatives. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.