immich-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds some context by specifying what's listed (comments and likes) and the optional filtering capability, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List comments and likes for an album') and includes the optional filtering detail without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent), but no output schema exists. The description explains the resource and filtering, yet lacks details on return format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a list operation.

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 67%, with parameters 'album_id' and 'type' having descriptions, while 'asset_id' lacks one. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by asset,' which loosely relates to 'asset_id,' but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List comments and likes for an album, optionally filtered by asset.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('comments and likes'), and scope ('for an album'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.albums.list' or 'immich.activities.statistics', which would require 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 provides minimal guidance with 'optionally filtered by asset,' but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'immich.activities.statistics' or 'immich.albums.get' for album details. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context vague.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.