immich_untag_assetsRemove a tag from multiple assets at once by supplying the tag ID and asset IDs, clearing that tag from selected Immich photos or videos.
Untag assets
Remove a tag from all the specified assets.
Immich operation: DELETE /tags/{id}/assets · tag: Tags
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | format: uuid | |
| ids | Yes | ids (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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that removal applies to 'all the specified assets' (bulk scope) and maps to the DELETE /tags/{id}/assets endpoint, but it discloses no permission requirements, error behavior, or what happens if a tag is missing.
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 description is short and front-loads the action and scope in a single sentence, followed by the API endpoint mapping. The only minor inefficiency is the first line 'Untag assets' duplicating the title.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema descriptions and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. It omits edge-case behavior and permission notes, but those are minor given the structured data available.
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%: both 'id' (tag UUID) and 'ids' (array of asset UUIDs, request body) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('tag') with the scope 'all the specified assets', and identifies the underlying operation (DELETE /tags/{id}/assets). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like immich_tag_assets or immich_bulk_tag_assets, so it falls 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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the reverse operation (immich_tag_assets) or the bulk tag variant, so the agent must infer usage from the action alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.