immich-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that URLs include API keys for direct browser access and lists the types of links returned (thumbnail, original file, web UI), which helps the agent understand the output format and authentication mechanism.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and return values, the second adds critical behavioral detail about API keys. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns and authentication details. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on response structure (e.g., JSON format).

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% with one parameter (asset_id as UUID), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find the asset_id or format examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 direct URLs') and resource ('for viewing or downloading an asset'), specifying it returns thumbnail, original file, and web UI links. It distinguishes from siblings like immich.assets.get (likely returns metadata) and immich.assets.list (returns multiple assets).

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 when direct URLs are needed for access, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like immich.assets.get or immich.shared_links.create. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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