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 context by specifying the types of data returned (places, people, things), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or output format, keeping the score at a baseline level.

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 core purpose ('Get discovery data') and elaborates with specific examples. Every word contributes meaning without waste, making it highly 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 complexity (simple read operation with no parameters), annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent), and the description specifies data types. However, the lack of an output schema means the description doesn't explain return values, leaving a gap in completeness for agent invocation.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it adds value by clarifying what 'discovery data' includes (places, people, things), which compensates for the lack of 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: 'Get discovery data: popular places, recognized people, and notable things in your library.' It uses specific verbs ('Get discovery data') and identifies the resource ('your library'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.search.metadata' or 'immich.search.smart', which prevents a score of 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'discovery data' but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or compare it to other search tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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