immich-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what can be searched (metadata filters) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by page/page_size parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with partial/null filters. No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence efficiently lists the search scope and filter types. No wasted words, though it could be more structured by grouping related filters or mentioning pagination. Appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 search tool with 13 parameters, 38% schema coverage, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the search intent and filter categories but lacks details on parameter interactions, result format, pagination behavior, and usage context. Completeness is borderline given the tool's complexity.

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 only 38%, with most parameters having only titles. The description lists general filter categories (date range, type, location, camera model, person, filename) which maps to some parameters (type, city/country, make/model, person_id, taken_after/before) but doesn't explain semantics for query, is_favorite, is_archived, page, or page_size. It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the low coverage.

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: 'Search assets using metadata filters' with specific filter types listed (date range, type, location, camera model, person, filename). It distinguishes from siblings like 'immich.search.smart' and 'immich.search.explore' by specifying metadata-based search, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'immich.search.smart' or 'immich.search.explore'. The description lists filter types but doesn't provide context about when metadata search is preferred over other search methods or what prerequisites might exist.

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