immich_remove_partnerStops sharing assets with a partner by removing them as a partner in Immich. Use it when you need to revoke partner access and end asset sharing.
Remove a partner
Stop sharing assets with a partner.
Immich operation: DELETE /partners/{id} · tag: Partners
| 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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully clarifies what the destruction means in domain terms (sharing stops, the partner entity isn't necessarily deleted), but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or whether assets previously shared remain visible.
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, with the effect on the second line and the REST mapping last. The title is restated verbatim at the top and the endpoint/tag line is boilerplate, but the whole thing is still tight.
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?
A single-parameter mutation with no output schema is roughly covered by the annotations plus the effect sentence, but an agent gets no signal about permissions or what a caller should expect afterward. Adequate, not complete.
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 there is a single UUID parameter already documented by the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the 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?
States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (partner) and adds the effect: 'Stop sharing assets with a partner.' That distinguishes it from immich_update_partner and immich_get_partners without the agent opening a schema, though it never names those siblings directly.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer from the effect line that this revokes an existing partner relationship rather than creating or modifying one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.