immich_get_user_preferences_adminRetrieve a specific user's preferences through Immich's admin API by providing their UUID. Use it to inspect language, theme, and notification settings for support or audits.
Retrieve user preferences
Retrieve the preferences of a specific user.
Immich operation: GET /admin/users/{id}/preferences · tag: Users (admin)
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the admin-endpoint context, which implies elevated permissions, but says nothing about return shape, admin-only authorization failure modes, or error behavior.
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 title is repeated verbatim as the first line and then restated in the second sentence, which is mild redundancy. The operation line is compact and useful for disambiguation.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, a complete schema, and no output schema to explain, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it correctly. It only lacks explicit sibling routing, which is a minor gap.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with 'format: uuid' documented in the schema. The description's 'a specific user' confirms the id identifies a user target, which is a small but real addition over the bare 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 and resource ('Retrieve the preferences of a specific user') and the Immich operation line pins the exact endpoint (GET /admin/users/{id}/preferences) and admin tag. This clearly separates it from the self-scoped sibling immich_get_my_preferences, though it never names that sibling 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: the 'admin' tag and 'a specific user' phrasing suggest this is for administrators looking up another user's preferences, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or stated alternative (e.g., use immich_get_my_preferences for your own settings).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.