immich-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as specifying it retrieves 'details' of a link, but doesn't elaborate on error handling, permissions, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the essential information, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which could be helpful despite annotations covering safety aspects.

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 the parameter 'shared_link_id' fully documented as a 'Shared link UUID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying the ID is used to fetch details, aligning with the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('specific shared link by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.shared_links.list' or 'immich.shared_links.update' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit comparison that would warrant a 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'immich.shared_links.list' for listing all links or 'immich.shared_links.update' for modifying one. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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