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 operation. The description adds value by specifying that it returns server version and status, which are behavioral details not covered by annotations. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements beyond 'authentication', but this is sufficient given the annotations.

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 purpose ('Verify connectivity and authentication') and includes the return value. Every word adds value with no waste, making it optimally 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. A slight gap exists in not detailing the exact format of the return (e.g., JSON structure), but this is minor for a ping tool.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.

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 specific action ('Verify connectivity and authentication') and resource ('Immich server'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform data operations like create, delete, list, update, etc. It explicitly mentions what it returns ('server version and status'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 context by stating it verifies connectivity and authentication, suggesting it should be used to check server availability and auth status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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