immich-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds that it 'Returns paginated results,' which is useful behavioral context not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't describe error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes an 'asset' in this system.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds critical behavioral information (paginated results). Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the pagination behavior but doesn't explain what an 'asset' represents in this system, doesn't describe the return format (no output schema exists), and doesn't clarify filter semantics. Given 6 parameters with only 50% schema coverage, the description should do more to compensate.

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% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'optional filters' which aligns with parameters like is_favorite, is_archived, is_trashed, and type, but doesn't explain what these filters mean or their relationships. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, which already documents page, page_size, and type parameters adequately.

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 assets with optional filters.' This specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('assets'), and mentions filtering capability. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.assets.get' (single asset) or 'immich.search.*' tools, which could also retrieve assets in different ways.

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 sibling tools like 'immich.assets.get' (for single assets), 'immich.search.*' tools (for different search methods), or 'immich.albums.list' (for album-based asset grouping). The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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