immich_get_user_onboardingRetrieve the current user's onboarding status to check setup progress, enabling clients to guide users or gate features.
Retrieve user onboarding
Retrieve the onboarding status of the current user.
Immich operation: GET /users/me/onboarding · tag: Users
| 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, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the raw HTTP path and tag, which is restatement rather than behavioral context; it says nothing about auth requirements scope or what the status 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?
The first line is a verbatim repetition of the title, and the remaining content is a near-synonymous sentence plus an operation footer. It is short, but a third of the text carries no information beyond the name.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for the return value, and 'onboarding status' is not elaborated (e.g., what flags it contains). For a zero-param read tool the definition is adequate but leaves the response shape opaque.
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. The description correctly implies there is nothing to pass (current user is implicit), and no additional parameter meaning is needed or missing.
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 the onboarding status') and scopes it to 'the current user', which implicitly separates it from immich_get_admin_onboarding and immich_set_user_onboarding. Sibling disambiguation is only implicit, not named, 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling immich_set_user_onboarding that would let an agent know this is the read half of a read/write pair. 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.