immich_link_o_auth_accountConnect an OAuth account to the authenticated user to enable OAuth-based authentication.
Link OAuth account
Link an OAuth account to the authenticated user.
Immich operation: POST /oauth/link · tag: Authentication
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | url (request body) | |
| state | No | state (request body) | |
| codeVerifier | No | codeVerifier (request body) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it is non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint (POST /oauth/link) and Authentication tag, but does not cover return behavior, required auth state, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, a 3 fits.
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?
Three lines: a title echo, one clear sentence, and an operation line. Front-loaded with the core action. The opening title repetition is slightly redundant but overall efficient.
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 3-parameter authentication mutation with no output schema, the description gives the endpoint and tag but omits prerequisites (e.g., prior OAuth flow steps), success/failure behavior, and how it relates to sibling OAuth tools. Annotations and schema cover some ground, but the lack of procedural context is a 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema's generic 'request body' labels; it does not explain what url, state, or codeVerifier represent.
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 'Link' and resource 'OAuth account' with target 'authenticated user'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling OAuth operations such as immich_start_o_auth or immich_finish_o_auth, so no sibling differentiation.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description only restates the action; it does not explain when linking is appropriate relative to starting, finishing, or unlinking OAuth accounts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.