immich-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by specifying the optional filtering capability ('Optionally filter by shared status'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, 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 extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the action and optional feature without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and annotations covering safety, the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It lacks details on output format, pagination, or error handling, and there's no output schema to compensate. For a list tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the schema doesn't explain the 'shared' parameter. The description adds some meaning by indicating it's for filtering by shared status, but it doesn't detail the parameter's behavior (e.g., true/false/null effects). With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks full semantics.

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 ('List') and resource ('all albums'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'immich.albums.get' (which likely retrieves a specific album) or 'immich.search.smart' (which might search albums), so it lacks 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?

The description implies usage for listing albums with optional filtering by shared status, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'immich.albums.get' for single albums or 'immich.search.smart' for more complex queries. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or named alternatives.

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