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 minimal behavioral context by specifying that it retrieves 'full details' and 'including its assets,' which clarifies scope beyond just basic album info. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving some gaps.

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 ('Get full details of an album') and adds a key detail ('including its assets') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise 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 (2 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent), but the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, or asset inclusion nuances. It's adequate for a basic read operation but incomplete for full agent understanding, especially without an output schema to clarify response structure.

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 50% (only 'album_id' has a description), and the description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It implies asset inclusion but doesn't explain the 'without_assets' parameter's effect or usage. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of an album including its assets'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.albums.list' (which likely lists albums without full details) or 'immich.assets.get' (which gets individual assets), so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an album ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'immich.albums.list' for listing albums or 'immich.assets.get' for asset details, leaving usage context implied at best.

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