immich_get_queueRetrieve a specific Immich queue by name to check job processing status, including thumbnail generation, metadata extraction, or other background tasks.
Retrieve a queue
Retrieves a specific queue by its name.
Immich operation: GET /queues/{name} · tag: Queues
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Queue name |
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 by structured data. The description adds only the underlying Immich operation and tag, which is mildly useful context but not behavioral depth beyond the annotations.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but the opening line 'Retrieve a queue' is an exact restatement of the following sentence, which is mild redundancy. Still, no wasted explanation.
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-only tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves unfilled the one thing an agent needs: how it differs from the other queue-retrieval siblings. Return-value explanation is not required since no output schema exists.
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 'name' parameter carries a 19-value enum with a description, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for schema-covered params.
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 and resource: 'Retrieve a queue' / 'Retrieves a specific queue by its name.' An agent can tell it reads a single named queue, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like immich_get_queues or immich_get_queue_jobs.
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 guidance on when to use this versus immich_get_queues (list all) or immich_get_queue_jobs (jobs within a queue), which are near-identical siblings. Usage is only implied by the name and the required 'name' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.