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 value by specifying it discovers 'server features and supported API capabilities,' which provides context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like response format, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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: 'Discover Immich server features and supported API capabilities.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations cover safety), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks output details (no output schema provided) and usage context. For a capabilities discovery tool, more information about what 'features and capabilities' includes would enhance completeness, though annotations help mitigate some risks.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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: 'Discover Immich server features and supported API capabilities.' It uses specific verbs ('Discover') and identifies the resource ('Immich server features and supported API capabilities'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'immich.ping' which might also provide server information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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, timing, or how it differs from other server-related tools like 'immich.ping' or general API exploration methods. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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