immich_get_workflow_for_shareFetches the workflow details for a shared item using its ID, returning the workflow without internal IDs or default values.
Retrieve a workflow
Retrieve a workflow details without ids, default values, etc.
Immich operation: GET /workflows/{id}/share · tag: Workflows
| 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 safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that the result omits ids and default values (a sanitized/publication-oriented form), which is context beyond the annotations, but it stops short of describing overall return shape.
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 duplicated verbatim as the first description line and 'Retrieve a workflow details' is awkward phrasing, so it is not perfectly waste-free.
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?
With no output schema and a retrieval tool whose whole point is returning a specific sanitized representation, the description should clarify what comes back. The 'without ids, default values, etc.' hint is a start but leaves the result content and the distinction from immich_get_workflow under-specified.
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% with a single required uuid 'id', so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no format, lookup, or scoping detail for the id, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
It states the verb and resource ('Retrieve a workflow'), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it never explains why this exists alongside the sibling immich_get_workflow, nor what 'for share' actually means; the cryptic phrase 'without ids, default values, etc.' gestures at a sanitized variant but does not differentiate it from its closest sibling.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (immich_get_workflow, immich_search_workflows), and no conditions that would route an agent to this tool rather than another. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.